Simon Fairlie says royals better than elected presidents

[Tony Gosling]

Having a chat at the Green Gathering the other 
week Simon made it clear he prefers the monarchy to a presidential system.
Well, diabolical though most presidents are, (not 
Gaddafi or Assad BTW) the multi generational 
bigheadedness & theoretical unremovability of the 
European royal bloodlines Saxe Coburg Gotha 
Merovingans etc is at the heart of much of whats wrong in Britain and our world
Monarchy is an aberration - and while HRH keeps 
mum we all know she hates Jeremy Corbyn and all 
he stands for and might even 'do a Diana' to him should he get close to power.
Must try to get Kevin and Simon to do a proper debate on this.
T

Tony Gosling Jun 12, 2012 At last making some 
real headway with this vexing question of who 
owns the shares of the Bank of England. This 
ain't nationalisation ma'am! 2 Extracts from WAR 
OF THE WINDSORS A Century of Unconstitutional 
Monarchy By Lynne Picnett, Clive Prince and 
Stephen Prior With additional historical research 
by Robert Brydon Mainstream publishing - 2003 ISBN: 1 84018 766 2



<http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2012/06/496942.html>http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2012/06/496942.html

http://www.911forum.org.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=161285#161285
<https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/Diggers350/conversations/messages/4291>https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/Diggers350/conversations/messages/4291 

EXTRACT 1/2: THE BANK OF ENGLAND NOMINEES In 
early 1973 new legislation governing the 
ownership of shares was proposed by the Heath 
Government. This would force stockbroking 
companies to disclose the names of the 
individuals on whose behalf they bought shares 
(to prevent them gaining a controlling interest 
in a company by buying shares in several 
different names). The Queen was concerned that 
this would mean that details of her private 
investments would be made public, which would 
allow her personal wealth to be calculated - 
which the royal family had always strenuously 
avoided - and asked her Private Secretary, Sir 
Martin Charteris (who had succeeded Sir Michael 
Adeane in 1972), to express her anxiety to Edward 
Heath. The legislation was delayed, but 
eventually became law - under Labour in 1976 as 
the Companies Act. However, a special clause was 
included that exempted a new shareholding 
company, Bank of England Nominees. This was 
established with the purpose of handling 
investments solely on behalf of heads of state 
and their immediate families. This allowed the 
Queen's investments and those of her family - 
along with those of other heads of state, such as 
the Sultan of Brunei, who were quick to take 
advantage of the exemption - to be effectively 
concealed. Extraordinarily, not even the 
Chancellor of the Exchequer is permitted to know 
about the Queen's personal investments. Andrew 
Morton writes: The result of this legislation has 
been to cocoon further the royal finances in a 
web of mystery. Journalists who delve into dusty 
share registers find the impenetrable phrase 
'Bank of England Nominees' staring back at them 
when they try to find a hint of royal investment 
in a company. The justification for the clause 
was that public knowledge about where the Queen 
invested her money might influence the market. 
However, that this was just an excuse is revealed 
by a memo sent from the Palace to the Government 
saying that it is 'to be congratulated on a neat 
and defensible solution'. In other words, the 
Palace were pleased that the Government had come 
up with a way of justifying the secrecy. EXTRACT 
2/2 ........Thanks to the legal privileges she 
enjoys - such being able to hide her investments 
behind the screen of the Bank of England Nominees 
- the Queen's personal wealth is literally 
incalculable. There is no information available 
to enable it to be calculated with certainty, 
although a recent analysis by the Independent 
estimated Elizabeth II's personal fortune to be 
around £175 million. Of course, the question can 
fairly be asked why her subjects need to know 
about her private means, which are quite separate 
from the government funds intended to pay for her 
expenses as Head of State. But the distinction is 
not always clear: for example, although the 
estates at Balmoral and Sandringham - acquired in 
Victoria's reign - are said to be the Queen's 
private property, there is evidence that Victoria 
and Albert acquired them at least partly with 
money diverted from the Civil List, in which case 
surely the state has a claim on them? And when 
these houses are occupied they are paid for by 
the taxpayer, on the grounds that wherever the 
Queen is she is always the Head of State. What of 
the Royal Collection - the works of art that 
according to one estimate are worth around £7 
billion, and which contain three times as many 
paintings as the National Gallery? In theory the 
Queen holds all these 'in trust' for the nation; 
in practice she alone possesses them, while they 
remain largely unseen by the rest of us (at 
anyone time, less than a half of a per cent of 
the collection is on public display). There is 
also the very vexed question of the 'grace and 
favour' properties, paid for the state but 
occupied by...... WAR OF THE WINDSORS CONTENTS 
Acknowledgements Prologue 1. 'A Kingly Caste of 
Germans' 2. 'The People's Prince' 3. 'Christ! 
What's Going to Happen Next?' 4. 'A Kind of 
English National Socialist' 5. 'The Most 
Unconstitutional Act' 6. 'The End of Many Hopes' 
7. 'The House of Mountbatten Now Reigns!' 8. 
'That German Princeling' 9. 'In Spite of 
Everything, He was a Great Man' 10. 'After All 
I've Done for this F-ing Family' 11. 'There are 
Powers at Work in This Country About Which We 
Have No Knowledge' Notes and References Bibliography Index

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.gn.apc.org/mailman/private/diggers350/attachments/20160816/1368e897/attachment.html>