FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist  Chat Chat  UsergroupsUsergroups  CalendarCalendar RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Order of the Garter: Liz, Charles & Wills' secret coven
Goto page Previous  1, 2
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    9/11, 7/7 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> The Bigger Picture
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
TonyGosling
Editor
Editor


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 16048
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England

PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2012 8:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

'Dangerous Dauphin'
Analogy to the horrible fate of the young French heir to the throne in the French Revolution will not be lost on anyone in the know Shocked


Prince Charles's letters: a right royal cover-up
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/16/prince-charles-let ters-cover-up-editorial?
The prospect of a systemic and fundamental abuse of the essentially passive role of the crown in our constitutional monarchical system seems too dangerous to contemplate
Editorial - The Guardian, Tuesday 16 October 2012 20.12 BST
Two sides of the attorney general, Dominic Grieve, were on show at the same time on Tuesday. In the first, Good Dominic announced to MPs that he intends to apply to quash the 96 Hillsborough inquests and have them reheld. Result: approval all round as Mr Grieve sprang decisively to the aid of the families whose cause is to expose the truth about how the 96 died. Meanwhile, in the other, while the attorney harvested congratulations from MPs over Hillsborough, Bad Dominic was publishing an abject edict to veto the release of the Prince of Wales's correspondence with ministers under freedom of information laws. Result: the normally admirable Mr Grieve risked seeming a pusillanimous ministerial jobsworth unwilling to let the public learn the full truth about our foolish and meddling heir to the throne.
There is no dispute that the prince has been bombarding ministers with his self-interested and often reactionary views for years. Even Mr Grieve admits as much in his statement confirming that many of the prince's letters to seven departments contained "particularly frank" personal views which, if revealed, would have "undermined his position of political neutrality". It seems all too clear that the disturbing prospect of a systemic and fundamental abuse of the essentially passive role of the crown in our constitutional monarchical system was too dangerous to contemplate.
In his attempt to justify the unjustifiable, Mr Grieve has clutched at a fragile constitutional doctrine and adopted a deeply dubious legal course. The doctrine is that all letters from the prince are part of something called "preparation for kingship". This medieval-sounding notion is far too sweeping – as the courts themselves have found. It is an invented tradition, a conceit devised for the purpose of getting this particular prince off the hook. A moment's thought shows it to be a nonsense. Where is the line drawn if other lesser royals fire off letters as self-indulgent as the prince's? How long – five years or 50? – is a prince deemed to be "preparing for kingship"? When, if ever, are preparations complete? Mr Grieve's doctrine seems to imply that writing foolish letters to ministers is a princely duty. This merely pours petrol on the flames.
The dubious legal course is the claim that such matters are protected under the FoI laws. This is highly questionable. The law allows ministers to veto the release of documents in exceptional cases, mainly where cabinet government is deemed under threat. But it is neither clear nor reasonable that the law extends to a case like this – the matter should be tested. Ministers pretend their concern is to protect the proper training of a good and useful prince, when in fact it is primarily to cover up for the constitutionally dubious blunderings of an indulged and even dangerous dauphin.

_________________
www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org
www.rethink911.org
www.patriotsquestion911.com
www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org
www.mediafor911truth.org
www.pilotsfor911truth.org
www.mp911truth.org
www.ae911truth.org
www.rl911truth.org
www.stj911.org
www.v911t.org
www.thisweek.org.uk
www.abolishwar.org.uk
www.elementary.org.uk
www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149
http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
Disco_Destroyer
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


Joined: 05 Sep 2006
Posts: 6342

PostPosted: Sun Oct 21, 2012 12:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Passive? When all agencies are the HM Agencies? and everyone swears Allegiance to one before and above the Country?
_________________
'Come and see the violence inherent in the system.
Help, help, I'm being repressed!'


“The more you tighten your grip, the more Star Systems will slip through your fingers.”


www.myspace.com/disco_destroyer
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
TonyGosling
Editor
Editor


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 16048
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England

PostPosted: Tue Nov 13, 2012 11:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

What phone calls has the Queen been making about Abu Qatada?
What Christian Zionist sneaky secret lobbying?
Even the racist toady labour shadow home affairs spokesmoron Diana Johnson, MP for Hull North saying he will get a 'fair trial' in Jordan.
UK political parties entirely controlled by these racist Christian Zionist/Masonic networks.
Why is this even such a big deal - of course he should not be extradited to Jordan.
The Secret Government speaks volumes.

The radical cleric Abu Qatada is a free man again after an appeals commission criticised the Home Secretary for wrongly refusing to revoke his deportation order.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/abu-qatada-to-be-released-o n-bail-after-winning-appeal-against-deportation-to-jordan-8306025.html

_________________
www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org
www.rethink911.org
www.patriotsquestion911.com
www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org
www.mediafor911truth.org
www.pilotsfor911truth.org
www.mp911truth.org
www.ae911truth.org
www.rl911truth.org
www.stj911.org
www.v911t.org
www.thisweek.org.uk
www.abolishwar.org.uk
www.elementary.org.uk
www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149
http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
TonyGosling
Editor
Editor


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 16048
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England

PostPosted: Thu Nov 15, 2012 11:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

In December 2005, Abu Qatada made a video appeal to the kidnappers of British peace activist Norman Kember in Iraq. That recording, made inside Full Sutton prison near York where he was awaiting extradition proceedings, was broadcast in the Middle East. The question was whether this appeal was genuine, or simply tactical.
In 2008 he was briefly allowed out of prison on bail, while continuing his deportation legal battle. Mohamed Ali, who runs the Islam Channel on satellite television, has known the cleric for years and held talks with him during that period out of prison.
He told the BBC: "Abu Qatada has no links with terrorism [or] al-Qaeda and he never ever agreed or endorsed what was done in 9/11 in America or 7/7 in the UK.
"He said that if he had known that something was going to happen, he would lock them up. He thinks that jihad is limited to either defending Muslim lands when invaders come to Muslim lands or if force is being used to overthrow dictatorship regimes.
Former Scotland Yard anti-terror chief
"He believes that the covenant between any Muslim coming to this country and the government stands and it should be honoured by both parties."
But Bob Quick, former head of counter-terrorism at Scotland Yard, doesn't buy this argument.
He said: "I would describe Abu Qatada as very dangerous, a man with significant influence, significantly well networked in Europe and the Middle East with very extreme views and prepared to promulgate those views and influence the views of others and their conduct.
"He was very well networked, very well connected, with al-Qaeda. He was an active supporter of terrorism and extreme Islamist objectives through terrorism.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16584923

_________________
www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org
www.rethink911.org
www.patriotsquestion911.com
www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org
www.mediafor911truth.org
www.pilotsfor911truth.org
www.mp911truth.org
www.ae911truth.org
www.rl911truth.org
www.stj911.org
www.v911t.org
www.thisweek.org.uk
www.abolishwar.org.uk
www.elementary.org.uk
www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149
http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
TonyGosling
Editor
Editor


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 16048
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England

PostPosted: Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mary Dejevsky

Thursday 15 November 2012
The real villains of the Abu Qatada case are not Theresa May, Jordan, or European courts - but MI5

Those who wrongly blame Strasbourg have the wind in their sales. But if this preacher of hate is deemed a threat to British security, why was he not tried in a British court?
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/the-real-villains-of-the-a bu-qatada-case-are-not-theresa-may-jordan-or-european-courts--but-mi5- 8320405.html

Any successful politician has to be attuned to the public mood. And in wanting two fearsome Muslim preachers out of the country, David Cameron has been spot on. The Prime Minister did not conceal his delight when the hook-handed cleric Abu Hamza was finally on a flight to the United States. And this week he vented his frustration that Abu Qatada had won his release. Cameron said he was “completely fed up that this man was still at large in our country”.

Whether his fury was entirely justified is another matter. In these and similar cases, ministers have been adept at throwing up their hands and acting powerless. On the positive side, they cite the independence of the UK judiciary, separation of powers and all that laudable constitutional stuff. Alternatively, they come over all xenophobic and the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg bears their wrath.
Recrimination

The ECHR has the merit, for its detractors, of sounding as though it is part of the EU behemoth, even though it is not. This makes it easy for ministers to present its rulings as eating away at national sovereignty, especially when they ignore the proportion of cases the UK wins.

The Home Secretary is now said to be closeted with lawyers, scrabbling for grounds on which to appeal. She may also be trying to extract new guarantees from Jordan to the effect that, if Abu Qatada is extradited to stand trial on terrorist charges, he will not face evidence obtained by torture. Theresa May appeared to have secured such guarantees in Jordan last March, but they were not enough for the Special Immigration Appeals Commission. There might be a chance, but perhaps not a good one, that the Government will eventually get its way.

Until the desired result is achieved, however – if ever it is – the air will be thick with recriminations about the delays, the cost, and the apparent imbalances in a system that allows inconvenient characters to stay in Britain long after they have overstayed their welcome. With Abu Qatada, the Government seems to have undermined its own case by sounding out Jordan about a pardon.

This would, of course, have allowed the authorities to extradite Abu Hamza with a clear conscience. But any talk of a pardon – now clarified as applying only to offences for which he was tried in absentia – was unlikely to be welcome to the Jordanians. This was probably not the best course for the Home Office to have pursued.
Stalemate

So there is stalemate. The Government has been made to look impotent, and those who blame Strasbourg, or – mistakenly – the EU, have the wind in their sails. But this is a scenario which, in a way, suits ministers because it neatly deflects attention from the obvious option that this government, like its predecessors, has rejected.

The truth is that, if the authorities regarded Abu Qatada as a serious threat to the UK – as they appear to do – he could and should have been tried in a British court. In effect, we are trying to outsource our justice to Jordan – and in Abu Hamza’s case, to the US.

If this were happening because the UK authorities saw no grounds for trying these individuals here, they could say just that, drop the charade of pre-emptive control orders, and let Abu Qatada and company live their lives or face extradition to countries where they are wanted. They would cease to be a British political issue.

The Government, though, wants it both ways. It regards these preachers as dangerous. “We believe,” said Cameron, of Abu Qatada, “that he’s a threat to our country.” Which strongly implies there is evidence. But the Government cannot bring itself to produce that evidence in court because the security services, so it is said, insist it would jeopardise national security.

Their specific objections appear to be twofold: requiring intelligence officers to testify in court could imperil their safety, while admitting evidence from telephone surveillance could assist the enemy by giving away covert techniques. Not everyone agrees, though. In 2008, Prime Minister Gordon Brown said he approved the use of intercept evidence, but four years later it is still not permitted.

The Justice and Security Bill, which returns to the Lords next week, is seen by many in government as part of a solution. And it has been stoutly defended as such by Baroness Manningham-Buller, a former head of MI5, who said that it would allow the Government to contest, in particular, certain compensation claims against the security services that it was currently obliged to settle.

But it is not clear how much of a remedy this legislation will be, if any. It permits any case with a security aspect – or any case, perhaps we should say, that can be presented as having a security aspect – to be heard at least partly in camera. Is this not likely to perpetuate a culture of secrecy that itself will foster a continued sense of impunity?

It is beyond time that the Government – and the criticism applies not just to this government – stopped sitting on the fence and finally made its choice. The question is this: which represents the greater threat to the UK’s security: the use of intercept evidence in court, or leaving Abu Qatada – and others – at large? I do not know the answer.

Disingenuous

But the security services seem to have convinced successive governments that their officers and methods take precedence. And if that is so, it is worth asking why we, as taxpayers, employ and fund them if, when their evidence is most needed, their right to secrecy has the effect of thwarting justice?

We have no way of knowing how far, even whether, the security services or individual officers may have abused their position in relation to “rendition” and torture during the years after 9/11. It must be doubtful whether any of these cases will ever see the light of day. But when ministers complain about the foibles of – our own – liberal judges or the excesses of Strasbourg, they are being disingenuous.

If the Government really wants to end a situation where it appears hostage to outside forces, it has the solution to hand. It must pluck up courage and level with the security services, who still hanker after the hush-hush world of their past.

Lady Justice Hallett showed what could be done, even under current law, when she won the right to question intelligence agents at the 7/7 inquest, against the ferocious resistance of MI5 and MI6. The post 9/11 panic “war on terror” gave security services on both sides of the Atlantic an inch, while allowing them to take a mile. That leeway must be taken back and the Government’s authority restored.

_________________
www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org
www.rethink911.org
www.patriotsquestion911.com
www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org
www.mediafor911truth.org
www.pilotsfor911truth.org
www.mp911truth.org
www.ae911truth.org
www.rl911truth.org
www.stj911.org
www.v911t.org
www.thisweek.org.uk
www.abolishwar.org.uk
www.elementary.org.uk
www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149
http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
TonyGosling
Editor
Editor


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 16048
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England

PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2012 7:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

BOB LOMAS <earlgrey@talktalk.net>
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2012 11:50 AM
Subject: A MATTER OF NATIONAL IMPORTANCE

Dear Editor,

A MATTER OF NATIONAL IMPORTANCE

One finds it hard to believe that a leading national newspaper such as the Daily Mail should publish an article on an essential subject of national importance written by a professional journalist, in this instance Michael Thornton, who clearly has no understanding of our Constitution and the role of the monarchy; unless of course the object of the article was to deliberately deceive.

In the article Michael Thornton ponders on whether or not Prince Charles should be Crowned King following the demise of the Queen or whether he should step aside making way for William. According to our system of constitutional monarchy that decision lies not in the hands of the monarchy or Parliament but in the hands of the people who decide who they want in a national election known as the coronation.

It is now so long since we had a coronation that few people know what it is all about and how it proceeds. In the event there is a great deal of protocol and pageantry of course, baggage that has accumulated down through the centuries, but apart from that, in principle, the procedure is basically quite simple. On the day of the coronation people drawn by invitation from every facet of society whose obligation it is to represent the people, assemble at the appointed place, traditionally Westminster Abbey. Traditionally the person to be crowned is the first in line of royal ascent, as the Crown passes to the first in line of royal ascent on the death or abdication of the previous monarch.

The coronation ceremony is the confirmation of that inheritance but there can be no confirmation until the people through their representatives assembled have verbally expressed their consent. The Archbishop of Canterbury brings forward the sovereign who at that time wears only a plain robe without regalia and asks all present if they accept the person before them to be their lawful monarch. It is then for those assembled to cry yea or nay. It is this vital aspect of the coronation that makes it an election, for if the people had no choice or say in the matter the question would be irrelevant. The people have the lawful right to reject the first in line and choose a sibling providing the person of their choice is in the line of royal ascent. It is recorded that Henry VIII always spoke of his coronation as being his election. Once the sovereign has been publicly accepted by the people the monarch then takes the coronation oath and swears not to rule or reign over the people but to 'govern' the nation according to the people's laws and customs.

Because since the days of George III aspiring politicians have sought to play down the lawful role of the people's monarch and have hidden the true meaning of the coronation and its importance, the people by and large have no understanding of what our constitutional monarchy and this nation is all about. This nation is not about Parliament and the people, it is about the people and their elected monarch, Parliament being no more than a temporary administration and legislature with no powers of its own what so ever, and governments are no more than delegated authorities subordinate to the people by sworn obligation to the people's elected sovereign as being the official Governor of the nation, a political office much the same as the President of the United States of America.

Under the prevailing political circumstances it would seem however that none of this is any longer relevant as in 1972 the Conservative Party then in government signed an article of national capitulation with the then European Economic Community which surrendered the sovereignty of the nation and the constitutional supremacy of the people's Crown to an unelected and unaccountable foreign political power. As clearly there can be no sovereign head of state in a country that is no longer sovereign and no governor of a nation that is no longer self governing the British monarchy was at that time effectively terminated.

This was confirmed in the case of the Merchant Shipping Act 1983 when the government of the day was brought to heel and the country heavily fined for having defied the supremacy of the European Commission. Later, in the case of the Metric Martyrs who defied the supremacy of European law and attempted to exercise their lawful right to sell their wares in traditional measurements according the our sovereign laws as promised them by the Queen in her coronation oath, the presiding judge dismissed their claim on the grounds that we had agreed in 1972 to surrender our national sovereignty to the EEC. Further confirmation of the termination of the monarchy came following the signing of the Maastricht Treaty when Prime Minister John Major announced in the Commons that the Queen had been made a citizen of the EU. Clearly no one can be both monarch and citizen at the same time.

With this regard it would seem that the British people are living under a delusion created by a sinister smoke and mirrors system backed by charades such as the Queen's silver jubilee and all upheld and perpetuated by the national press. Presently it is a case of 'oh what a web we weave', but all could be rectified if the national press jointly decided to be honest with the people and tell them the truth and so halt the progress down the slippery slope to anarchy on which the nation has embarked. Alas, recent events suggest that such an action would be highly unlikely.

Yours Faithfully, Bob Lomas. The Magna Society.

_________________
www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org
www.rethink911.org
www.patriotsquestion911.com
www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org
www.mediafor911truth.org
www.pilotsfor911truth.org
www.mp911truth.org
www.ae911truth.org
www.rl911truth.org
www.stj911.org
www.v911t.org
www.thisweek.org.uk
www.abolishwar.org.uk
www.elementary.org.uk
www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149
http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
TonyGosling
Editor
Editor


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 16048
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England

PostPosted: Sun Feb 17, 2013 1:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

New documents reveal Prince Charles influence on politics
Prince Charles, heir to the British throne (L), British Prime Minister David Cameron (R)
Sat Feb 16, 2013 4:24PM GMT
http://www.presstv.com/detail/289292.html
Britain’s heir to the throne Prince Charles has been secretly given a say over dozens of new laws, the British government reveals.
It was emerged that tens of new laws were sent to the Prince of Wales for his approval and opinion before being taken further, raising concerns that Prince Charles had been intervening in the affairs of Parliament on many occasions.
A freedom of information request showed that over the past 11 years the Prince was consulted on 33 pieces of legislation, including the hunting ban legislation and the government’s green initiative.
He was also consulted on Land Registration Bill in February 2002, Licensing Bill in June 2003, Communications Bill in March 2003, Health and Social Care Bill in July 2003, Finance Bill in 2004 and Companies Bill in 2006.
Paul Flynn MP, a Labour member of the Commons Public Administration Select Committee, said, “There are doubts about Prince Charles and whether he is persistently intervening on political matters. There must be a grave doubt whether he will remain silent if he should become Monarch.”
Earlier in January, Whitehall papers showed at least 39 bills had been subject to the royal approval, with the British Queen and the Prince of Wales using their power to consent or block legislation proposed by the UK parliament in areas such as military authority, civil partnership, higher education, paternity pay and child maintenance.


UK Republic welcomes Prince Charles tax avoidance scrutiny
Prince Charles, heir to the British throne
Sat Feb 16, 2013 3:43PM GMT
http://www.presstv.com/detail/289283.html
Britain’s anti-monarchy campaign group Republic welcomes Prince Charles tax avoidance scrutiny.
Britain’s anti-monarchy campaign group Republic has welcomed the news that the Commons public accounts committee (PAC) is challenging tax exemptions enjoyed by British heir to the throne Prince Charles's £728m hereditary estate.
Unclaimed property in the Duchy of Cornwall, which Prince Charles owns thanks to his royal status under an ancient law, provided him with an £18.3m private income last year.
The 540 square kilometer duchy does not have to pay corporation or capital gains tax on trading.

The PAC said an inquiry is likely to be launched into the matter, after over 30 MPs and members of the public complained about the duchy's tax arrangements.
The committee will probably investigate public spending on the British Queen and the Prince of Wales's travel and official homes.
“We welcome the news that the PAC will be adding the Duchy to their inquiry into corporation tax avoidance. As we pointed out in December there is no justification for the Duchy to be avoiding this tax,” said Republic’s chief executive Graham Smith.
In December 2012, anti-monarchy campaigners asked Britain's HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) to investigate what they allege is "a well-entrenched tax avoidance scheme" being run by the duchy.
“The duchy is a trading body and major land owner. Like all other trading bodies it should pay its fair share of tax. Instead the Duchy keeps ducking and diving, changing its excuses each time in a desperate bid to justify its position,” Smith added.

_________________
www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org
www.rethink911.org
www.patriotsquestion911.com
www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org
www.mediafor911truth.org
www.pilotsfor911truth.org
www.mp911truth.org
www.ae911truth.org
www.rl911truth.org
www.stj911.org
www.v911t.org
www.thisweek.org.uk
www.abolishwar.org.uk
www.elementary.org.uk
www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149
http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
TonyGosling
Editor
Editor


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 16048
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England

PostPosted: Thu Feb 06, 2014 9:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

As a teenager Keiser Wilhelm II was educated at Kassel at the Friedrichsgymnasium. In January 1877 Wilhelm finished high school and on his eighteenth birthday received as a present from his grandmother, Queen Victoria, the Order of the Garter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_II,_German_Emperor#Early_years

_________________
www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org
www.rethink911.org
www.patriotsquestion911.com
www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org
www.mediafor911truth.org
www.pilotsfor911truth.org
www.mp911truth.org
www.ae911truth.org
www.rl911truth.org
www.stj911.org
www.v911t.org
www.thisweek.org.uk
www.abolishwar.org.uk
www.elementary.org.uk
www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149
http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
TonyGosling
Editor
Editor


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 16048
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England

PostPosted: Wed May 07, 2014 7:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Former head of MI5 from Northampton joins Order of the Garter
http://www.northamptonchron.co.uk/news/local/former-head-of-mi5-from-n orthampton-joins-order-of-the-garter-1-6019893
24 April 2014 16:05
The Northampton-born former head of MI5 has been appointed to the Order of the Garter by the Queen.
Buckingham Palace announced that the Eliza Manningham-Buller - whose full title is Baroness Northampton in the county of Northamptonshire, will formally receive the honour in June.
Recipients are chosen because they have held public office, contributed to national life or served the sovereign personally.
Baroness Manningham-Buller, 65, was director general of MI5, from 2002 until her retirement in 2007. She joined MI5 in 1974.
Born in Northampton, Lady Manningham-Buller became a crossbench life peer in April 2008.
She took the full title of Baroness Manningham-Buller of Northampton in the County of Northamptonshire.
Baroness Manningham-Buller visited the University of Northampton in November last year where she spoke to students about her career.
During her five-year tenure as director general, Baroness Manningham-Buller and her team uncovered 15 serious terrorist plots and were involved in 12 big operations, including Operation Overt which led to the successful aversion of the liquid bomb plot in the summer of 2006.
The 2005 London bombings took place under her watch.
New appointments to the Order of the Garter are announced on St George’s Day and the ceremonies take place on Garter Day on the Monday of Royal Ascot week in June.

_________________
www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org
www.rethink911.org
www.patriotsquestion911.com
www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org
www.mediafor911truth.org
www.pilotsfor911truth.org
www.mp911truth.org
www.ae911truth.org
www.rl911truth.org
www.stj911.org
www.v911t.org
www.thisweek.org.uk
www.abolishwar.org.uk
www.elementary.org.uk
www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149
http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
TonyGosling
Editor
Editor


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 16048
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England

PostPosted: Mon Jul 14, 2014 10:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

some interesting thoughts about the nature of the Queen's 'dark forces' from Karen Keller http://facebook.com/karenakell

QUEEN ELIZABETH AND THE DEMONS OF ISRAEL: We all know that modern Freemasonry is summoning forces from the lower astral planes [commonly referred to as 'Hell']. The major character in Freemasonry is the ancient KING SOLOMON of Israel who employed the Chaldean Judaic priests to bring all the demons under his command. Queen Elizabeth is the Grand Pattronness of International World Freemasonry and is the boss of her own quasi-Masonic cult called the ORDER OF THE GARTER which meets at St George's Chapel on the estate of WINDSOR CASTLE. The Order of the Garter wear a snake-shaped green garter clip on their stockings with a solid gold clasp. On the roof of the chapel there are statues of demons - including Amdicias [the unicorn] and the YALE [a strange composite creature which resembles a goat and horse with round nodules on its skin].
Amongst its highest ranks Freemasonry has many aristocratic and royal splinter groups such as the ORDER OF THE SERAPHIM [Swedish Royal Family], the ROYAL ALPHA LODGE [convened at Kensington Palace], the ORDO TEMPLI ORIENTIS [whose British HQ is in Brighton] and in the USA, there are off-shoot cults such as the SKULL AND BONES who meet inside custom-built marble mausoleums and are based on the masonic rituals of the BAVARIAN ILLUMINATI. A much less known American cult is the BOOK AND SNAKE - their members include former President George Bush. 'BUSH' is an ancient Hebrew family name which is listed in the Jewish Encyclopedia as being part of the 'lost tribes' who made their exodus from the Holy Lands and travelled into Europe.
Freemasonry is just one of many different secret societies in which magical rituals summon the 'demons' and 'jinn' spirits. When Queen Elizabeth was crowned, the Arch-Bishop invoked the name of KING SOLOMON and his priest ZADOK, and hymns evoking the greatness of ISRAEL were sung as the crown was placed on her head. The entire Coronation Ritual is actually based on an ancient magical ceremony. The British crown is kept in a special room called the JERUSALEM CHAMBER the night before it is placed on the Monarch's head. In the Koran and Jewish ancient texts, King Solomon is described as having influence and power over hundreds of demons called the 'jinn'. King Solomon is the monarch which all the European kings and queens claim they are descended from.
These aristocratic royal families use symbols of unicorns, griffins, lions and dragons on their shields to represent the demons which King Solomon summoned.
Now, in Africa, archaeologists have found proof that Magical Ritual is the most ancient spiritual activity - and this is confirmed by archaeological excavations in Botswana, Africa and also in Namibia and Algeria. In Botswana, the PYTHON ROCK has been discovered with more than 13,000 ritual artefacts buried at the back of a cave.
In Australia, the aboriginal people have been painting the faces of these demons on rocks for thousands of years - they call them the WANDJINNA - and the middle part of the word 'Wandjinna' spells the same word 'Jinn'. JINN is the Koranic word for 'demon'. It is now very obvious that archaeology is confirming that not only have magical rituals summoning spirits been a central aspect to the evolution of Mankind - but many of these demons have retained the SAME NAME across many cultures and millennia on all continents...
Shortly after being crowned, Queen Elizabeth joined the ANCIENT ORDER OF DRUIDS and was initiated as a BARD-MAGICIAN. To the Masonic network of secret societies, she is fulfilling the role of the SKY GODDESS who is painted on the cave walls of Africa and who inspired the notion of NUIT or NUT - the over-arching Sky Goddess of ancient Egypt.
In a new 42-part series, the enigma channel exposes and investigates the complicated and weird rituals of the BROTHERHOOD OF THE SNAKE and many other cults from the ancient world -

There is a photo showing the royal emblem of these demons - especially AMDUCIAS [the unicorn] frolicking with MARBAS [the Lion demon] pictured alongside the Queen. We are all walking around each day with images of these demons in our pockets; the Royal Mint and Royal Mail use the symbols of these demons on coins, stamps and bank notes. The 'Yale' demon is featured on the QUEENS BEASTS stamp collection.
At KEW GARDENS, there are many statues of these demons. And at HAMPTON COURT PALACE there is a collinaded walkway featuring many of the demons from ancient Israeli texts - they are known as the QUEEN'S BEASTS.

_________________
www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org
www.rethink911.org
www.patriotsquestion911.com
www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org
www.mediafor911truth.org
www.pilotsfor911truth.org
www.mp911truth.org
www.ae911truth.org
www.rl911truth.org
www.stj911.org
www.v911t.org
www.thisweek.org.uk
www.abolishwar.org.uk
www.elementary.org.uk
www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149
http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
TonyGosling
Editor
Editor


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 16048
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England

PostPosted: Sat May 16, 2015 9:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Prince Charles's 'black spider memos' show lobbying at highest political level
Publication of 27 letters after 10-year legal battle shows heir to the throne petitioning ministers on subjects from the Iraq war to alternative therapies
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/may/13/prince-charles-black-sp ider-memos-lobbying-ministers-tony-blair

Robert Booth and Matthew Taylor
Wednesday 13 May 2015 20.27 BST Last modified on Thursday 14 May

A cache of secret memos between Prince Charles and senior government ministers has been released after a 10-year legal battle, offering the clearest picture yet of the breadth and depth of the heir to the throne’s lobbying at the highest level of politics.

The 27 memos, sent in 2004 and 2005 and released only after the Guardian won its long freedom of information fight with the government, show the Prince of Wales making direct and persistent policy demands to the then prime minister Tony Blair and several key figures in his Labour government.

From Blair, Charles demanded everything from urgent action to improve equipment for troops fighting in Iraq to the availability of alternative herbal medicines in the UK, a pet cause of the prince.


Prince warned Blair armed forces were in Iraq 'without necessary resources'
Read more
In a single letter in February 2005, he urged a badger cull to prevent the spread of bovine tuberculosis – damning its opponents as “intellectually dishonest”; lobbied for his preferred person to be appointed to crack down on the mistreatment of farmers by supermarkets; proposed his own aide to brief Downing Street on the design of new hospitals; and urged Blair to tackle a European Union directive limiting the use of herbal alternative medicines use in the UK.

The government has spent more than £400,000 on legal costs in its ultimately failed attempt to block the original 2005 freedom of information request by the Guardian journalist Rob Evans. The case was eventually decided at the supreme court and the decade-long saga involved in total 16 different judges.

Analysis Prince Charles letters include strong backing for badger cull
Long exchange of letters in 2005 with then prime minister, Tony Blair, includes call to tackle tuberculosis in cattle and detailed analysis of farming issues
Read more
David Cameron’s last government attempted to veto the release. In 2012 the then attorney general, Dominic Grieve, warned they “would be seriously damaging to his role as future monarch because, if he forfeits his position of political neutrality as heir to the throne, he cannot easily recover it when he is king”.

But following the release of the “black spider” memos – so-called because of the prince’s scrawled handwriting – there were questions on Wednesday about whether it was worth the money to try to keep secret details of his lobbying, some of which reflects Charles’s very narrow personal interests.


Did Prince Charles's letter lead Tony Blair to postpone herbal medicines law?
Read more
For example, in October 2004 he told the environment minister Elliot Morley he hoped “illegal fishing of the Patagonian toothfish will be high up on your list of priorities because until that trade is stopped, there is little hope for the poor old albatross”.

But they also cover more controversial subjects. In one memo, Charles explicitly lobbied Tony Blair when he was prime minister to replace Lynx military helicopters.

Charles complained that delays in their replacement was “one more example where our Armed forces are being asked to do an extremely challenging job (particularly in Iraq) without the necessary resources”. Blair responded that replacement would be a priority for spending.

He directly urged the health secretary, John Reid, to accelerate redevelopment at a hospital site in Sunderland in which his own architecture charity was involved, warning bluntly that “chickens will come home to roost” in Reid’s government department if action was not taken.

The letters revealed not only that ministers often responded actively to his suggestions but they appeared to hold his interventions in high regard.

Blair replied to him in one letter: “I always value and look forward to your views – but perhaps particularly on agricultural topics.”

After Charles Clarke, then education secretary, responded to Charles’ complaint about the nutritional content of school meals, he signed off: “I have the honour to be, Sir, Your Royal Highness’s most humble and obedient servant.”

The memos also reveal how dogged Charles can be in demanding actions from ministers as it emerged that his engagement with key political players has not abated. Since the beginning of 2010, the prince held 87 meetings with ministers, opposition party leaders and top government officials, new figures release by the campaign group Republic showed. This year he has held meetings with, among others, David Cameron, the Scottish National party leader, Nicola Sturgeon, the education secretary, Nicky Morgan, and Alistair Carmichael, then Scotland secretary.

0:00
/
0:00
Embed
Facebook Twitter Pinterest
The Guardian’s Robert Booth sheds light on the contents of the letters. Link to video
The letters emerged amid growing signs that Prince Charles is planning to rule in a far more outspoken way than the taciturn Queen. Allies told the Guardian last year he planned “heartfelt interventions” in national life, while in 2013 his friend and biographer Jonathan Dimbleby said: “A quiet constitutional revolution is afoot.”

But this is likely to be the only glimpse the British public gets of Charles’ correspondence with ministers. Since the original Guardian request to see the letters the government has tightened up the Freedom of Information Act to provide an “absolute exemption” on all requests relating to the Queen and the heir to the throne.

Paul Flynn, a Labour MP and member of the political and constitutional reform committee, said the letters lifted the lid on the activity of the “the lobbyist supreme in the land”.


Prince keeps his fists in velvet gloves – but does not pull his punches
Read more
“They show he is putting forward a whole variety of views – including many bad science views and others that should have no more weight than the man down the pub,” he said. “We can see his views were given a seriousness and priority they did not deserve.”

Prince Charles was said to be “disappointed” the principle of confidentiality had not been maintained, and his spokeswoman said publication “can only inhibit his ability to express the concerns and suggestions which have been put to him in the course of his travels and meetings”.


Read the Prince Charles 'black spider' memos in full
Read more
But aides argue the letters do not show the prince engaging in matters of party political contention, implying they do not breach the principle of political neutrality.

“The letters published by the government show the Prince of Wales expressing concern about issues that he has raised in public,” his spokeswoman said. “In all these cases, the Prince of Wales is raising issues of public concern, and trying to find practical ways to address the issues.”

But the Guardian’s editor-in-chief, Alan Rusbridger, said: “We fought this case because we believed – and the most senior judges in the country agreed – that the royal family should operate to the same degrees of transparency as anyone else trying to make their influence felt in public life. The attorney general, in trying to block the letters, said their contents could ‘seriously damage’ perceptions of the prince’s political neutrality.

“Whatever the rights and wrongs of that assessment, it is shocking that the government wasted hundreds of thousands of pounds of public money trying to prevent their publication. Now, after 10 years, we are pleased to be able to share the contents of his correspondence and let people draw their own conclusions.”

Graham Smith, chief executive of Republic, which campaigns for an elected head of state, said: “These letters are only a small indication of widespread lobbying that’s been going on for years. We now need full disclosure and an assessment of his impact on government policy.”

Maurice Frankel, director of the UK Campaign for Freedom of Information, said: “The release of the Charles memos represents a major victory for the freedom of information process, showing that ministers cannot block disclosure simply because they don’t like the result.”

Michael Meacher, a former Labour environment secretary who received private letters from Charles about policy, called for a new system of transparency around his correspondence with ministers when he becomes king to “remove public suspicion from the process”.

Charles’s letters and the democratic process
Letters: That an unelected man with no constitutional role should be able to bend the ear of those in public office smacks of the divine right

“A brief statement would be made when the king has written to a minister and the subject would be obvious,” he said. “At least we would know he has been giving his opinions and, some would say, lobbying ministers.”


TonyGosling wrote:
The Royals slowly being exposed as key political movers and shakers interfering all over the place.. more - this time it's Prince Charles spending milions on PR for all sorts of good causes
Then this:


Prince Charles letters: bid to keep parts of missives to ministers secret
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/oct/12/prince-charles-letters-legal- attempt
Seven government departments launch last-ditch legal attempt to block disclosure of portions of prince's 'black spider memos'
Rob Evans - guardian.co.uk, Friday 12 October 2012 14.30 BST
Seven government departments have launched a last-ditch legal attempt to keep secret portions of confidential letters written by Prince Charles to ministers.
The legal manoeuvre was initiated shortly before they lost a long-running tribunal, which ordered that, for the first time, the prince's letters should be disclosed under the Freedom of Information Act.
The three judges sitting in the FoI tribunal decided in September that the public had a right to know how the prince seeks to change government policy behind the scenes.
The government departments' latest move comes after they had already spent seven years resisting the disclosure of the letters.
The long battle started in 2005 when the Guardian submitted freedom of information requests to see copies of the prince's letters to ministers over a seven-month period.
The prince has for some years been criticised for "meddling" in government affairs and seeking to persuade ministers to alter policy.
He is believed to write to ministers arguing his personal point of view in letters which have become known as "black spider memos" because of his handwriting.
It has been reported that his interventions have included complaints about "politically correct interference" in people's lives and the threat of an American-style personal injury culture becoming prevalent in Britain.
Critics say he should stay out of government policy as he is not democratically elected.
Last month, the FoI tribunal ruled that copies of correspondence between the prince and ministers in the seven departments over the seven-month period in 2004 and 2005 should be disclosed.
The tribunal, led by Mr Justice Walker, decided that the "essential reason" for disclosing the letters "is that it will generally be in the overall public interest for there to be transparency as to how and when Prince Charles seeks to influence government".
The judges ordered that the letters should be handed over to the Guardian, unless ministers decide to lodge an appeal by next Thursday.
Over the course of two years, the tribunal had heard evidence on whether the letters should be released to the public.
Just before the government departments were defeated at the tribunal, they decided to raise another legal issue which they had not explicitly argued before – that parts of the letters which relate to the privacy of unspecified individuals other than the prince should be blacked out. It is unclear who these individuals are or how extensive the references to them in the letters are.
Lawyers for the Guardian had argued that "this belatedly raised issue" should be ignored as the government had failed to make this argument at any point in the past seven years.
"No explanation has been provided … as to why the issue has only been raised for the first time now, well past the 11th hour, when it cannot have escaped the departments' legal advisers for this long," they argued.
In a ruling published on Friday, the judges in the tribunal have decided that if the government departments do not lodge an appeal, it will spend more time deciding whether those parts of the letters concerning the privacy of these other individuals should be kept secret. That could delay the disclosure of those portions of the letters.

_________________
www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org
www.rethink911.org
www.patriotsquestion911.com
www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org
www.mediafor911truth.org
www.pilotsfor911truth.org
www.mp911truth.org
www.ae911truth.org
www.rl911truth.org
www.stj911.org
www.v911t.org
www.thisweek.org.uk
www.abolishwar.org.uk
www.elementary.org.uk
www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149
http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
Whitehall_Bin_Men
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


Joined: 13 Jan 2007
Posts: 2265
Location: Westminster, LONDON, SW1A 2HB.

PostPosted: Thu Oct 26, 2017 11:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense
Order of the Garter
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/sociopol_garter03.htm

A garter is one of the Order's most recognizable insignia. Diamonds spell out the motto of the Order on this seventeenth century garter.
The Most Noble Order of the Garter is an English order of chivalry with a history stretching back to medieval times; today it is the world's oldest national order of knighthood in continuous existence and the pinnacle of the British honours system. Its membership is extremely limited, consisting of the Sovereign and not more than twenty-five full members, or Companions. Male members are known as Knights Companions, whilst female members are known as Ladies Companions (not Dames, as in most other British chivalric orders). The Order can also include certain extra members (members of the British Royal Family and foreign monarchs), known as "Supernumerary" Knights and Ladies. The Sovereign alone grants membership of the Order; the Prime Minister does not tender binding advice as to appointments, as he or she does for most other orders.

As the name suggests, the Order's primary emblem is a garter bearing the motto "Honi soit qui mal y pense" (which means "Shame on him who thinks ill of it") in gold letters. The Garter is an actual accessory worn by the members of the Order during ceremonial occasions; it is also depicted on several insignia.

Most British orders of chivalry cover the entire kingdom, but the three most exalted ones each pertain to one constituent nation only. The Order of the Garter, which pertains to England, is most senior in both age and precedence; its equivalent in Scotland is The Most Ancient and Most Noble Order of the Thistle. Whilst the Order of the Thistle was certainly in existence by the sixteenth century and possibly has medieval origins (or even, according to more fanciful legends, dates to the eighth century), the foundation of the institution in its modern form dates only to 1687. In 1783 an Irish equivalent, The Most Illustrious Order of St Patrick, was founded, but since the independence of the greater part of Ireland the Order has fallen dormant (its last surviving knight died in 1974).


History

The Order was founded circa 1348 by Edward III as "a society, fellowship and college of knights." Various more precise dates ranging from 1344 to 1351 have been proposed; the wardrobe account of Edward III first shows Garter habits issued in the autumn of 1348. At any rate, the Order was most probably not constituted before 1346; the original statutes required that each member admitted to the Order already be a knight (what would today be called a knight bachelor), and several initial members of the Order were first knighted in that year.

Various legends have been set forth to explain the origin of the Order. The most popular one involves the "Countess of Salisbury" (it may refer to Joan of Kent, the King's future daughter-in-law, or to her then mother-in-law, whom Edward is known to have admired). Whilst she was dancing with the King at Eltham Palace, her garter is said to have slipped from her leg to the floor. When the surrounding courtiers sniggered, the King picked it up and tied it to his own leg, exclaiming "Honi soit qui mal y pense." (The French may be loosely translated as "Shame on him who thinks ill of it"; it has become the motto of the Order.) According to another myth, Richard I, whilst fighting in the Crusades, was inspired by St George to tie garters around the legs of his knights; Edward III supposedly recalled the event, which led to victory, when he founded the Order.


Composition

Sovereign and Knights

Since its foundation, the Order of the Garter has included the Sovereign and Knights Companions. The Sovereign of the United Kingdom serves as Sovereign of the Order.


Queen Elizabeth II in Garter Robes
The Prince of Wales is explicitly mentioned in the Order's statutes and is by convention created a Knight Companion; aside from him, there may be up to twenty-four other Knights Companions. In the early days of the Order, women (who could not be knighted), were sometimes associated with the Order under the name "Ladies of the Garter," but they were not full companions. Henry VII, however, ended the practice, creating no more Ladies of the Garter after his mother Margaret Beaufort, Countess of Derby (appointed in 1488).

Thereafter, the Order was exclusively male (except, of course, for the occasional female Sovereign) until 1901, when Edward VII created Queen Alexandra (his wife) a Lady of the Garter. Throughout the 20th century women continued to be admitted to the Order, but, except for foreign female monarchs, they were not full members of the Order until 1987, when it became possible, under a statute of Elizabeth II, to appoint "Ladies Companions."

In addition to the regular Knights and Ladies Companions, the Sovereign can also appoint "Supernumerary Knights". This concept was introduced in 1786 by George III so that his many sons would not count towards the limit of twenty-five companions set by the statutes; in 1805, he extended the category so that any descendant of George II could be created a Supernumerary Knight. Since 1831, the exception applies to all descendents of George I. Such companions, when appointed, are sometimes known as "Royal Knights."

From time to time, foreign monarchs have also been admitted to the Order; and for two centuries they also have not counted against the limit of twenty-five companions, being (like the Royal Knights aforementioned), supernumerary. Formerly, each such extra creation required the enactment of a special statute; this was first done in 1813, when Alexander I, Emperor of Russia was admitted to the Order. Many European monarchs are in fact descended from George I and can be appointed supernumerarily as such, but a statute of 1954 authorizes the regular admission of foreign Knights and Ladies without further special statutes irrespective of descent. The appellation "Stranger Knights," which dates to the middle ages, is sometimes applied to foreign monarchs in the Order of the Garter.

Generally, only foreign monarchs are made Stranger Knights or Ladies; when The Rt Hon. Sir Ninian Stephen (an Australian citizen) and Sir Edmund Hillary (from New Zealand) joined the Order, they did so as Knights Companions in the normal fashion. The British Sovereign is the head of state of both these countries, which were formerly British colonies.

Formerly, whenever vacancies arose, the Knights would conduct an "election," wherein each Knight voted for nine candidates (of which three had to be of the rank of Earl or above, three of the rank of Baron or above, and three of the rank of Knight or above). The Sovereign would then choose as many individuals as were necessary to fill the vacancies; he or she was not bound to choose the receivers of the greatest number of votes. Victoria dispensed with the procedure in 1862; thereafter, all appointments were made solely by the Sovereign. From the eighteenth century onwards, the Sovereign made his or her choices upon the advice of the Government. George VI felt that the Orders of the Garter and the Thistle had become too linked with political patronage; in 1946, with the agreement of the Prime Minister (Clement Attlee) and the Leader of the Opposition (Winston Churchill), he returned these two orders to the personal gift of the Sovereign.

Knights of the Garter could also be degraded by the Sovereign, who normally took such an action in response to serious crimes such as treason. The last degradation was that of James Butler, 2nd Duke of Ormonde, who had participated in the Jacobite Rebellion and had been convicted upon impeachment, in 1716. During the First World War, Knights who were monarchs of enemy nations were removed by the "annulment" of their creations; Knights Companions who fought against the United Kingdom were "struck off" the Rolls. All such annulments were made in 1915.

The Knights who were removed were:
Francis Joseph, Emperor of Austria
William II, Emperor of Germany
Ernst August, 3rd Duke of Cumberland
Prince Albert William Henry of Prussia
Ernest, Grand Duke of Hesse and the Rhine
William, Crown Prince of Germany
William II, King of Württemberg
The only Knight Companion to be struck off the Rolls was Prince Charles Edward, 2nd Duke of Albany.

Poor Knights

At the original establishment of the Order, twenty-six "Poor Knights" were appointed and attached to the Order and its chapel at St. George's Chapel, Windsor. The number was not always maintained; by the seventeenth century, there were just thirteen Poor Knights. At his restoration, Charles II increased the number to eighteen. After they objected to being termed "poor", William IV renamed them the Military Knights of Windsor.

Poor Knights were originally impoverished military veterans. They were required to pray daily for the Sovereign and Knights Companions; in return, they received a salary, and were lodged in Windsor Castle. Today the Military Knights, who are no longer necessarily poor, but are still military pensioners, participate in the Order's processions, escorting the Knights and Ladies of the Garter, and in the daily services in St George's Chapel. They are not actually members of the Order itself, nor are they necessarily actual knights: indeed few if any have been knights.

Officers

The Order of the Garter has six officers:
the Prelate
the Chancellor
the Registrar
the King of Arms
the Usher
the Secretary
The offices of Prelate, Registrar and Usher were created upon the Order's foundation; the offices of King of Arms and Chancellor were created during the fifteenth century, and that of Secretary during the twentieth.

The office of Prelate is held by the Bishop of Winchester, traditionally one of the senior bishops of the Church of England. The office of Chancellor was formerly held by the Bishop of the diocese within which Windsor fell— at one point, the Bishop of Salisbury, but after boundary changes the Bishop of Oxford. Later, the field was widened so that, for example, the Stuart courtier Sir James Palmer served as Chancellor from 1645 although he was neither a prelate nor even a companion (although he was a Knight Bachelor). Today, however, one of the companions serves as Chancellor. The Dean of Windsor is, ex officio, the Registrar.

Garter King of Arms is the head of the College of Arms (England's heraldic authority) and thus the "principal" herald for all England (along with Wales and Northern Ireland). As his title suggests, he also has specific duties as the heraldic officer of the Order of the Garter, attending to the companions' crests and coats of arms, which are exhibited in the Order's chapel (see below). The modern (1904) office of Secretary has also been filled by a professional herald.

The Order's Usher is the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod. He is also the Serjeant-at-Arms of the House of Lords (although his functions there are more often performed by his deputy, the Yeoman Usher). The title of his office comes from his staff of office, the Black Rod.


Vestments and accoutrements

Sovereign and Knights

For the Order's great occasions, such as its annual service each June in Windsor Castle, as well for coronations, the Companions wear an elaborate costume:

Today Knights of the Garter wear their distinctive habits over ordinary suits or military uniforms. For the coronation of George IV in 1821, this version of Jacobean dress was devised.
Most importantly (although hardly visible), the Garter is a buckled velvet strap worn around the left calf by men and on the left arm by women. Originally light blue, today the Garter is dark blue. Those presented to Stranger Knights were once set with several jewels. The Garter bears the Order's motto in gold majuscules.
The mantle is a blue velvet robe. Knights and Ladies Companions have worn mantles, or coats, since the reign of Henry VII. Once made of wool, they had come to be made of velvet by the sixteenth century. The mantle was originally purple, but varied during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries between celestial blue, pale blue, royal blue, dark blue, violet and ultramarine. Today, mantles are dark blue in colour, and are lined with white taffeta. The mantles of the Sovereign and members of the Royal Family end in trains. Sewn onto the left shoulder of the mantle is a shield bearing St George's cross, encircled by a Garter; the Sovereign's mantle is slightly different, showing instead a representation of the star of the Order (see below). Attached to the mantle over the right shoulder are a crimson velvet
hood and surcoat, which have lost all function over time and appear to the modern observer simply as a splash of colour. Today the mantle, which includes two large gold tassels, is worn over a regular suit or military uniform.
The hat is of black velvet, and bears a plume of white ostrich and black heron feathers.
Like the mantle, the collar was introduced during Henry VII's reign. Made of pure gold, it weighs 30 troy ounces (0.93 kilogram). The collar is composed of gold knots alternating with enamelled medallions showing a rose encircled by the blue garter. During Henry VII's reign, each garter surrounded two roses—one red and one white—but he later changed the design, such that each garter now encircles just one red rose. The collar is worn around the neck, over the mantle.
The George, a three-dimensional figurine of St George on horseback slaying a dragon, colourfully enamelled, is worn suspended from the collar.

Queen Victoria wearing the Garter around her arm.
Aside from these special occasions, however, much simpler insignia are used whenever a member of the Order attends an event at which decorations are worn.
The star, introduced by Charles I, is an eight-pointed silver badge; in its centre is an enamel depiction of the cross of St George, surrounded by the Garter. (Each of the eight points is depicted as a cluster of rays, with the four points of the cardinal directions longer than the intermediate ones.) It is worn pinned to the left breast. Formerly, the stars given to foreign monarchs were often inlaid with jewels. (Since the Order of the Garter is the UK's senior order, a member will wear its star above that of other orders to which he or she belongs; up to four orders' stars may be worn.)
The broad riband, introduced by Charles II, is a four inch wide sash, worn from the left shoulder to the right hip. (Depending on the other clothing worn, it either passes over the left shoulder, or is pinned beneath it.) The riband's colour has varied over the years; it was originally light blue, but was a dark shade under the Hanoverian monarchs. In 1950, the colour was fixed as "kingfisher blue". (Only one riband is worn at a time, even if a Knight or Lady belongs to several orders.)
The badge (sometimes known as the Lesser George) hangs from the riband at the right hip, suspended from a small

Insignia of the Order of the Garter
gold link (formerly, before Charles II introduced the broad riband, it was around the neck). Like the George, it shows St George slaying the dragon, but it is flatter and monochromatically gold. In the fifteenth century, the Lesser George was usually worn attached to a ribbon around the neck. As this was not convenient when riding a horse, the custom of wearing it under the right arm developed.
However, on certain "collar days" designated by the Sovereign, members attending formal events may wear the Order's collar over their military uniform or eveningwear. The collar is fastened to the shoulders with silk ribbons. They will then substitute the broad riband of another order to which they belong (if any), since the Order of the Garter is represented by the collar.

Upon the death of a Knight or Lady, the insignia must be returned to the Central Chancery of the Orders of Knighthood. The badge and star are returned personally to the Sovereign by the nearest male relative of the deceased.

Poor Knights

Poor Knights originally wore red mantles, each of which bore the cross of St George, but did not depict the Garter. Elizabeth I replaced the mantles with blue and purple gowns, but Charles I returned to the old red mantles. When the Poor Knights were renamed Military Knights, the mantles were abandoned. Instead, the Military Knights of Windsor now wear the old military uniform of an "army officer on the unattached list": black trousers, a scarlet coat, a cocked hat with a plume, and a sword on a white sash.

Officers

The officers of the Order also have ceremonial vestments and other accoutrements that they wear and carry for the Order's annual service. The Prelate's and Chancellor's mantles are blue, like that of the knights (but since the Chancellor is now a member of the Order, he simply wears a knight's mantle), those of other officers crimson; all are embroidered with a shield bearing the Cross of St George. Garter King of Arms wears his tabard.

Assigned to each officer of the Order is a distinctive badge that he wears on a chain around his neck; each is surrounded by a representation of the garter. The Prelate's badge depicts St George slaying a dragon; the Garter within which it is depicted is surmounted by a bishop's mitre. The Chancellor's badge is a rose encircled by the Garter. The badge of Garter Principal King of Arms depicts the royal arms impaled (side-by-side) with the cross of St George. The Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod's badge depicts a knot within the Garter. The Registrar has a badge of a crown above two crossed quills, the Secretary two crossed quills in front of a rose.

The Chancellor of the Order bears a purse, embroidered with the royal arms, containing the Seal of the Order. The Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod carries his staff of office, the Black Rod. At the Order's great occasions, Garter Principal King of Arms bears his baton of office as a king of arms; he does not usually wear his crown.


Chapel

The Chapel of the Order is St. George's Chapel, Windsor, located in the Lower Ward of Windsor Castle. It was founded for

At the order's annual gathering and service, the sovereign and companions — such as George VI and Queen Elizabeth, shown here — process through Windsor Castle to St. George's chapel.
the Order in 1475. The order once held frequent services at the Chapel, but they became rare in the eighteenth century. Discontinued after 1805, the ceremony was revived by George VI in 1948 and it has become an annual event. On a certain day each June, the members of the Order (wearing their ceremonial vestments and insignia) meet in the state apartments in the Upper Ward of Windsor Castle, then (preceded by the Military Knights) process on foot down through the castle to St George's Chapel for the service. If there are any new knights, they are installed on this occasion. After the service, the members of the Order return to the Upper Ward by carriage.

Each member of the Order, including the Sovereign, is allotted a stall in the quire of the chapel, above which his or her heraldic devices are displayed. Perched on the pinnacle of a knight's stall is his helm, decorated with a mantling and topped by his crest. Under English heraldic law, women other than monarchs do not bear helms or crests; instead, the coronet appropriate to the Lady's rank is used (see coronet). The crests of the Sovereign and Stranger Knights who are monarchs sit atop their crowns, which are themselves perched on their helms. Below each helm, a sword is displayed.

Above the crest or coronet, the knight's or lady's heraldic banner is hung, emblazoned with his or her coat of arms. At a considerably smaller scale, to the back of the stall is affixed a piece of brass (a "stall plate") displaying its occupant's name, arms and date of admission into the Order.

Upon the death of a Knight, the banner, helm, mantling, crest (or coronet or crown) and sword are taken down. No other newly admitted Knight may be assigned the stall until (after the funeral of the late Knight or Lady) a ceremony marking his or her death is observed at the chapel, during which Military Knights of Windsor carry the banner of the deceased Knight and offer it to the Dean of Windsor, who places it upon the altar. The stall plates, however, are not removed; rather, they remain permanently affixed somewhere about the stall, so the stalls of the chapel are festooned with a colourful record of the Order's Knights (and now Ladies) throughout history.


Precedence and privileges

Knights and Ladies of the Garter are assigned positions in the order of precedence, coming before all others of knightly rank, and above baronets. (See order of precedence in England and Wales for the exact positions.) Wives, sons, daughters and

The arms of Knights and Ladies (as well as the Sovereign) may be encircled by the Garter.
daughters-in-law of Knights of the Garter also feature on the order of precedence; relatives of Ladies of the Garter, however, are not assigned any special precedence. (Generally, individuals can derive precedence from their fathers or husbands, but not from their mothers or wives.)

The Chancellor of the Order is also assigned precedence, but this is purely academic since today the Chancellor is always also a Knight Companion, with a higher position by that virtue.

(In fact, it is unclear whether the Chancellor's tabled precedence has ever come into effect, since under the old system the office was filled by a diocesan bishop of the Church of England, who again had higher precedence by virtue of that office than any that the Chancellorship could bestow on him.)

Knights Companions prefix "Sir," and Ladies Companions prefix "Lady," to their forenames. Wives of Knights Companions may prefix "Lady" to their surnames, but no equivalent privilege exists for husbands of Ladies Companions. Such forms are not used by peers and princes, except when the names of the former are written out in their fullest forms.

Knights and Ladies use the post-nominal letters "KG" and "LG," respectively. When an individual is entitled to use multiple post-nominal letters, KG or LG appears before all others, except "Bt" (Baronet), "VC" (Victoria Cross) and "GC" (George Cross).

The Sovereign, Knights and Ladies Companions and Supernumerary Knights and Ladies may encircle their arms with a representation of the Garter; and since it is Britain's highest order of knighthood, the Garter will tend to be displayed in preference to the insignia of any other order, unless there is special reason to highlight a junior one. (They may further encircle the Garter with a depiction of Order's collar, but this very elaborate version is seldom seen.) Stranger Knights, of course, do not embellish the arms they use at home with foreign decorations such as the Garter; likewise, while the UK Royal Arms as used in England are encircled by the Garter, in Scotland they are surrounded by the circlet of the Order of the Thistle instead. (In Wales and Northern Ireland, the English pattern is followed.)

Knights and Ladies are also entitled to receive heraldic supporters. These are relatively rare among private individuals in the UK. While some families claim supporters by ancient use and others have been granted them as a special reward, only peers, Knights and Ladies of the Garter and Thistle, and Knights and Dames Grand Cross and Knights Grand Commanders of certain junior orders are entitled to claim an automatic grant of supporters (upon payment of the appropriate fees to the College of Arms).


Current members and officers
Sovereign: HM The Queen
Knights and Ladies Companions:
HRH The Prince of Wales KG KT GCB OM AK QSO PC ADC (1958)
His Grace The Duke of Grafton KG DL (1976)
The Rt Hon. The Lord Richardson of Duntisbourne KG MBE TD PC DL (1983)
The Rt Hon. The Lord Carrington KG GCMG CH MC PC JP DL (1985)
His Grace The Duke of Wellington KG LVO OBE MC DL (1990)
Field Marshal The Rt Hon. The Lord Bramall KG GCB OBE MC JP (1990)
The Rt Hon. The Viscount Ridley KG GCVO TD (1992)
The Rt Hon. The Lord Sainsbury of Preston Candover KG (1992)
The Rt Hon. The Lord Ashburton KG KCVO DL (1994)
The Rt Hon. The Lord Kingsdown KG PC (1994)
The Rt Hon. Sir Ninian Stephen KG AK GCMG GCVO KBE (1994)
The Rt Hon. The Baroness Thatcher LG OM PC FRS (1995)
Sir Edmund Hillary KG ONZ KBE (1995)
Sir Timothy Colman KG JP (1996)
His Grace The Duke of Abercorn Bt KG (1999)
Sir William Gladstone of Fasque and Balfour Bt KG DL (1999)
Field Marshal The Rt Hon. The Lord Inge KG GCB DL (2001)
Sir Antony Arthur Acland KG GCMG GCVO (2001)
His Grace The Duke of Westminster KG OBE TD DL (2003)
The Rt Hon. The Lord Butler of Brockwell KG GCB CVO PC (2003)
The Rt Hon. The Lord Morris of Aberavon KG PC QC (2003)
The Rt Hon. Sir John Major KG CH (2005)
The Rt Hon. The Lord Bingham of Cornhill KG PC (2005)
The Rt Hon. The Lady Soames LG DBE (2005)
(one vacancy following the death of The Rt Hon. Sir Edward Heath KG MBE)

Royal Knights and Ladies (supernumerary knights and ladies descended from George I):
HRH The Duke of Edinburgh KG KT OM GBE AC QSO PC (1947)
HRH The Duke of Kent KG GCMG GCVO (1985)
HRH The Princess Royal LG LT GCVO QSO (1994)
HRH The Duke of Gloucester KG GCVO (1997)
HRH Princess Alexandra, The Honourable Lady Ogilvy LG GCVO (2003)

Stranger Knights and Ladies:
HRH Grand Duke Jean sometime Grand Duke of Luxembourg (1972)
HM The Queen of Denmark (1979)
HM The King of Sweden (1983)
HM The King of Spain (1988)
HM The Queen of the Netherlands (1989)
HIM The Emperor of Japan (1998)
HM The King of Norway (2001)

Officers:
Prelate: The Rt Revd Michael Scott-Joynt (Lord Bishop of Winchester)
Chancellor: The Rt Hon. The Lord Carrington KG GCMG CH MC PC DL
Registrar: The Rt Revd David Conner (Dean of St George's Chapel, Windsor)
King of Arms: Peter Llewellyn Gwynn-Jones Esq. CVO (Garter Principal King of Arms)
Secretary: Patric Dickinson Esq. CVO (Richmond Herald)
Usher: Lt-Gen. Sir Michael Willcocks KCB (Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod)
Return

_________________
--
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
http://aangirfan.blogspot.com
http://aanirfan.blogspot.com
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    9/11, 7/7 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> The Bigger Picture All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group