Monday, October 17, 2011

PRINCE CHARLES AND OTHER PRINCES

Charles

Prince Charles has appointed his former valet, Michael Fawcett, as manager of the project to restore Dumfries House, in Scotland.

A source told the Daily Mail newspaper: "The two of them have a very close working relationship and the prince trusts him implicitly."

(Fawcett the fixer and Charles' £45million gamble.)

According to The Daily Mail: "There could be no clearer indication that Charles's dependence on ... Fawcett ... is greater than ever."

Charles unveils a plaque at the Chrichton mental hospital museum in Dumfries.

Michael Fawcett is "employing the same silken skills he once used to sell off unwanted gifts from foreign dignitaries on the Prince’s behalf (a practice which led him to be unkindly dubbed ‘Fawcett the Fence’)"

Fawcett is a link to wealthy donors.

"One of those donors is hedge-fund boss Michael Hintze, whose 55th birthday party extravaganza at Wrotham Hall in Hertfordshire in 2008 was organised by Fawcett through Premier Mode, his events hospitality company."

Hintze is a key figure in the Liam Fox affair.


On 24 August 2005, George Smith died in Newport, Wales, of an unknown illness, aged 44.

George Anthony Smith was a former footman and valet in the Royal Household of Prince Charles.

Smith alleged that he was raped by Michael Fawcett, a servant of the Prince of Wales; and that Fawcett was himself in a homosexual relationship with the Prince of Wales. (George Smith (royal servant) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

Michael Fawcett with Charles ( http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1208279/Mystery-Prince-Charles-axes-aide-poached-Queen.html)

In 1943, Canadian gold-mining millionaire, Sir Harry Oakes, was brutally murdered at his home in the Bahamas.

The Governor of the Bahamas was Edward, the Duke of Windsor, formerly King Edward VIII.

Reportedly, Oakes knew of the Duke of Windsor's dealings with Swedish millionaire Axel Wenner-Gren and Germany’s Nazi Party.

Reportedly, Oakes opposed plans to build mafia casinos in the Bahamas. (The Sir Harry Oakes Mystery: Unsolved Murder in the Bahamas)


What links Prince Charles to Edward VIII?

Both have been linked to scandals. (Charles gay-sex scandal )

The young Prince Edward of Wales, later Edward VIII, and the young Prince Albert of Wales, later George VI.

Edward VIII had a sexual problem, according to certain experts.

According to Christopher Wilson's book, "Dancing with the Devil, The Windsors and Jimmy Donahue", Oxford students linked Prince Edward romantically with his tutor Henry Peter Hansel.

Philip Ziegler, official biographer of the Duke of Windsor, says it is possible that Edward was treated by hypnotist Dr Alexander Cannon for a sexual problem. (Strange story of the king and the hypnotist doctor - (Telegraph)

Cannon had links to 'the occult' and to fascism.

Edward, in 1928, on a visit to East Africa, became the lover of Beryl Markham, a female aviator.

Markham was conducting a simultaneous affair with Edward's younger brother, Prince Henry.

Markham was married at the time, and five months pregnant. (www.dailymail.)

Edward's wife, Wallis Simpson, may have been a man.

Dr John Randall, consultant psychiatrist at the Charing Cross hospital in London, reportedly told Michael Bloch, the Duchess's biographer, that Wallis Simpson had androgen insensitivity syndrome, a hormonal irregularity that causes a genetically male body to develop as a woman, although without fully developed sex organs. (Christopher Wilson's book, Dancing with the Devil, The Windsors and Jimmy Donahue)

Edward, Jimmy Donahue, Wallis

Both Edward and Wallis took an interest in a young gay man, the Woolworth heir Jimmy Donahue.

Donahue was an 'intimate' friend of Francis Spellman, New York's allegedly gay Cardinal Archbishop. (Christopher Wilson's Dancing with the Devil, The Windsors and Jimmy Donahue)

Charles, Diana and Michael Fawcett

What about prince Charles?

On 6 April 2008, the Mail reported on friends' growing fears over Charles and Camilla's three-year marriage as the rows escalate.

"The rows have been escalating over the past three months," one well-placed source said.

"The staff are getting tired of it because you can't help but hear the shouting. As you can imagine, it's hugely embarrassing when that happens."

Courtiers nicknamed Charles and Camilla 'The Glums'.

Camilla confided to friends that a Caribbean cruise with Charles had been a "nightmare".

On 10 April 2010, The Mail reported that the legal advice on the Charles and Camilla marriage will be sealed until after Charles's death (Charles / Camilla marriage: Legal advice sealed until after ...)

There have been doubts about the legality of the wedding.

Sofia Svenqist (asa.svenskdam.se/.../)

A Swedish playboy prince has struck up a romance with a glamour model who posed topless with a python.

Sofia

Thailand's Prince Vajiralongkorn "is already widely loathed and feared." (The Economist: As father fades, his children fight)

"Salacious stories of his private life are daily gossip.

"A video circulated widely in 2007 showed his third wife, known as the 'royal consort', at a formal dinner with the prince in a titillating state of undress.

"Diplomats say Prince Vajiralongkorn is unpredictable to the point of eccentricity: lavishing attention on his pet poodle Fu Fu, for example, who has military rank and, on occasion, sits among guests at gala dinners.

"In the 1980s his rumoured ties to the criminal underworld, which he denied in a newspaper interview, inspired the gangster nickname of 'Sia O'." (As father fades, his children fight)

Thai Crown Prince (http://www.thaiphotoblogs.com/index.php?blog=5&title)

11 comments:

Anonymous said...

Well, there is a theme, here, on Aangirfan's blog.

backed up with countless examples:

Homosexuality seemingly is connected with power and corruption and manipulation and blackmail.

Not that that isn't something that happens with heterosexuals, too.

But, it seems more virulent and the homosexuals more likely to sell out their country, their values, their propriety, for psychic power and dominance.

Strange, given modern ideas about sensibilities and stereotypes.

But it almost seems homosexuals are more driven to crave dominance of their fellow man.

More ruthless and indifferent to human suffering.

Perhaps, the sufferers are more indifferent to others that have and will suffer as a result of their actions.

I could be wrong, but Aangirfan has laid out quite an exhibit of sexual depravity in the higher ups of, primarily, British high society and political movers and shakers.

Much heterosexual depravity...
But, by my sense, the homosexual depravity seems to end up having more of an effect on government policy.

Zoompad said...

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=7&ved=0CEgQFjAG&url=http%3A%2F%2Ffreeourpress.info%2Ffreedom_of_the_press_videos%2Fprince-charles-scandal-subs%2F&ei=KDqdTuC_I9TC8QOGqom2CQ&usg=AFQjCNFkGXHx9iZOm850ctgMGhkMiKLq2g

nobody said...

Interesting Interesting, a truly excellent question. Why are gay men and women so prevalent amongst the truly vicious. What does it mean? What is causality and what is result? And was it always thus? Hmm... I'll have a stab at this over at the front page.

If ony I wasn't so busy rigging my van.

Hullo Aang, how are you?

Anon said...

Hi Anonymous and Nobody,

"Homosexuality seemingly is connected with power and corruption and manipulation and blackmail."

There is evidence that most people are bisexual - like the Bonobo chimps, our nearest relation in terms of DNA.

The average woman may claim not to be attracted to other women, but she may secretly think that Selena Gomez is rather cute.

There is evidence that famous men such as Alexander the Great, Napoleon, Churchill, Mao, Hitler etc etc were bisexual.

"What is causality and what is result?"

An ordinary peasant is quite happy to have a partner of the opposite sex, and he or she is not always too fussy about looks.

But someone like a president or emperor or spy will not be bound by the conventions.

A Napoleon will not choose just any old woman; he will want the finest of either sex.

If Prince Charles is bisexual, that would not make him different from most of his subjects.

- Aangirfan

Zoompad said...

"There is evidence that most people are bisexual "

I must be the exception then.

Anonymous said...

There does appear to be an indulgence in appetites, some of which go against the norms of society, among the rich & powerful.

Lack of restraint.

A disregard for the norms of society.

(How does that lack of restraint and disregard for the norms of society, among the elite, end up impacting society?)

Many of the elite ignore the Greeks' adage, "moderation - the mean between two extremes - balance".

Although, when it came to homosexuality, many Greeks disregarded their own advice (at least when it came to pubescent boys).

Admittedly, I consider homosexuality an extreme indulgence, not a normal sexual outlet.

I appreciate the majority of Aangirfan's facts & evidence he marshals in support of his conclusions. However, I'm not convinced most people are secretly bisexual. Bisexuality is a perverted outgrowth of the normal and healthy human need for companionship with his fellow man or woman.

Humans are social animals.

Some barnyard animals and even some wild animals will occasionally engage in homosexual contact (when no opposite sex is available), but almost always will go back to heterosexual contact when the first opportunity arises (without any lingering effect on their natural attraction to the opposite sex).

As for all male boarding schools -- it is not natural for pubescent boys to be isolated from pubescent girls (and even older women).

In America, it was well known that a "raid" across the lake to the girls' camp (summer camp), if within bounds, was a healthy outlet for natural sexual proclivity.

As also were frequent dances with the opposite sex.

Sexual isolation during puberty is not healthy for normal and natural sexual development & orientation.

(Neither is sexual abuse of children healthy for the children's normal & natural sexual development.)

Anonymous said...

Buggery is the norm in high society, I was told. Training starts early, it being accepted that, when staying overnight, the kids share beds ...and nobody reacts if the teen boys slip in (sic). And not a few of the men have been known to 'check that they're ok', taking their time over it. The women care less, nice and warm cuddling a couple of teen boys. Their own sons, sometimes.

Shocked?

I was slightly. But I knew the men who told me this well enough to trust what they were telling me. "Watch your back". Watch my back?! I clenched m'buttocks extra hard!!!

It matched what I'd heard from girls who had been abused in the myraid of 'ballet-schools for under-privilaged children' high personages sponsored. Let's say it as it is: pedophile-heaven. Some boxing-clubs were like that, too, until Frankie Vaughn and George Cooper came along, that sort of thing never occurred in THEIR clubs! Frankie might have looked a softy bi/gay but he was a viscious bas#ard when riled, an army-boxing champ.

It's several-fold: one is to harden them to breeding with who they are told to, or anything that moves in times of strife, including your own sisters and mother - the line must go on, even if watered-down a bit - then to get blackmail on those who waver or need 'to be persuaded' at various times for various reasons.

Plus not a few actually like it. Whatever sex. Whatever actual leanings.

As you've noticed, Aangirfan is onto it. But being onto it and being in a position to do something about it (hang 'em high) are 2 very different things. These people run the country/world, and have the power to smoother it.

As you've already noticed.

Blammo said...

"more virulent and the homosexuals more likely to sell out their country"

"Buggery is the norm in high society"


It is exceedingly rare to find an openly homosexual person in a position of power where we find abuse of power is an issue. Denial about ones homosexuality is a symptom of a deviant mentality, not the homosexuality itself.

Someone who denies the nature of their sexuality, be they homosexual, womanizer, rapist, or pedophile, is also an excellent candidate for coercion by blackmail, though this does not necessarily cast them as "victims," as consensual, mutually assured destruction seems to be the name of the game among the powered elite.

I think the distinction must be made, as homosexuality is evident among those who abuse their power, and that fact provides a rationalization to those who are already predisposed to denounce homosexuality, just as uncontrolled immigration and obfuscation of black-on-white crime statistics lends legitimacy to racism in the eyes of the racist.

With the exception of the flamboyant/activist, in-your-face variety cultured and promoted in the media by the usual suspects, the majority of gays are invisible because they are just like everyone else. Likewise, they are prone to dignified, considerate and altruistic behavior, as well as vulgar, mindless and malicious behavior, in the same proportions as straight people.

NP said...

Aangirfan:
I'm a long time reader of your findings.
This is the 2ยบ time i write.

Your answer to Anonymous and Nobody, make me think... what you sought to prove with the gay post?
(remember?)

Now, i like to mention to Noor, that Springmeier continues to talk... i love that man.

And i want to left a word of appreciation to C, Nobody & venusinpieces for your addings.

I'm Spartacus!

Egoigwe said...

"There does appear to be an indulgence in appetites, some of which go against the norms of society, among the rich & powerful.

Lack of restraint.

A disregard for the norms of society."

There could be a lot of other reasons too, for why this is. Let me just pick on one. The way society views homosexuality could be one. Homosexuals are seen as deviants and sick people by main stream society. Consequently, they have been forced by this attitude to live in the closet and ply their trade, as it were, from there.

Would it be right to say that homosexuality is a sexual preference or an indulgence in appetites that goes against societal norms? Or is it a genetic defect that compels the homosexual or sexual deviant to behave the way they do? In other words, could homosexuality be considered an act of God? If it were, would it be more acceptable and tolerated?

Now, this were the violence, depravity and disregard for societal norms evince. If the homosexual views his condition as an act of God, he is bound to wonder at why people blame him and not God for the way he is. He starts to resent society and fight back. He craves to control his fellow men who once scorned him and to come at them with all the vengeance his soul can muster.

Rich kids, especially very rich bored kids tend to explore sexual depravity as a come-back at their parents for having ignore them as kids or whatever else their warped reasoning conjures. They pursue a thirst for damaging their parents' squeaky clean reputations and for showing off their failings as 'good' parents. The Max Factor kid is a very good example that comes to mind.

When the homosexual sees his condition as an act of God, the whole world owes him and he cultivates a chip over his shoulder. His whole life's essence gets driven by a sense of revenge or the need to get back at society for defaming him-likewise the lesbian. They'd do whatever it takes to acquire power and through it fulfill this obsession for revenge and more importantly, to change society and its laws in a way that mocks those societal norms that constrict their lifestyle.

Their condition has forced them to live in the shadows and in it they find some comfort and covert response. From this shadow they reach out to pervert, coerce and blackmail others (especially high society, as if to say, see, they are no different than we are) into their fold or cult... and then damn them.

nobody said...

Gee Whiz, it's nice the kind of conversation you can have when the arseholes stay away isn't it?

Hullo Aang, not bad mate, not bad. But! There's many threads to this tapestry. Sure enough, everyone brings their own baggage. Me, I bring Charles Darwin ha ha. He's on one shoulder and Buddha is on the other. I don't think the Buddha cares one way or the other apart from saying one must give up desire. That's a non-denominational desire sure enough.

So, it's Darwin then. Weirdly enough Darwin (this is my Darwin of course - I've as much a right to him as anyone else) has no opinion either. Up to a point, that is.

Not forgetting of course that under Darwin reproduction, which is to say 'sex' comes before all other things. Oh wait, that's interesting, I just had a thought. Sex and reproduction. The same thing. And not the same thing at all... interesting.

And not forgetting that with sex being so fundamental of course it's the ideal tool for anti-buddha wickedness. There's a lot to this mate.

But! Why spoil it all here? Then there'd be nothing left for my place. And we can't have that. Geez, I'll have to get off my arse and write it now won't I? I should never promise things. It always gets me into trouble.

But then again it's not like this topic is going to go stale or anything is it? It's one of those classic perennials.

Anyway Aang lovely talking to you, always a pleasure.

ciao ciao

n

 
Site Meter