Charles is a steaming hypocrite

The Rancid Woke Charlie

‘In 1990s, as the divisions deepened within the royal household, Jimmy Savile was asked to attempt his latest and most audacious rescue bid…‘Savile was brought in by an aide as a sort of “Jim’ll Fix It” to the state of the marriage, but of course it didn’t work.’

But it was not only marriage guidance that Jimmy Savile was sought out for. He also advised Prince Charles on key appointments to his staff. When his private secretary Sir John Riddell decided to return to the City, Charles asked Savile to meet with one of the candidates suggested as his successor. After consultation with Savile and Rachel Aylard, Major-General Sir Christopher Airy was appointed private secretary and treasurer to the Prince and Princess of Wales.’

In Plain Sight – Dan Davies

You know that the British monarchy is a cult because otherwise reasonably intelligent people devolve to the very worst logical fallacies whenever they are confronted about their ongoing support for this ridiculous, outmoded institution which exists principally to defend the honour and entitlements of borderline retarded sexual deviants.

‘The polling shows that the Nation loves the King’, as if popular opinion would ever be a sufficient ground for anything, let alone an ostentsibly anti-democratic system of government. This is now the most common defence mounted of the Monarchy, it has replaced ‘Tourism’ for the most part, which was still bad but perhaps more excusable. I will not pretend that the quality of analysis in the early 2010s was exceptional, but I think that books like ‘Freakonomics’ had at least created a political-intellectual environment in which appeals to intuition, or the mob, could be dismissed out of hand in most Western societies.

But it is particularly galling to hear this argument advanced in a country where the traditional media is so slavishly deferential to these monsters, where even a hint of ‘republicanism’ is treated as ‘contrarian’. To be a Republican is crankish - in the first European country in the world to become a full republic - executing our King over a full century before America signed the Declaration of Independence or France slaughtered that oaf Louis-Auguste while Burke wept and wrote capeshit from his cuck chair.^[1]

The Monarchists are not just historically illiterate, they are also slavishly corrupt and hypocritical. The brighter amongst them know full well that they would not have public opinion on their side if the British Press was not owned by, and managed by individuals who are desperate to win favours (honours etc) from the Royal Family (or in some cases are simply buck-broken).

It is a combination of this corruption and Britain’s insane libel laws that means the British public are completely unaware of the true nature of our own Royal family. It is not for a lack of trying on behalf of journalists, either. Andrew Lownie has fought tireless legal battles against the Royal Family’s lawyers for many years attempting to expose not only Andrew’s conduct in relation to Epstein but that of the wider royal family.

Though I like Lownie, his efforts have not come yet to fruition, as evidenced by the fact that the public has any warm feelings to the Monarchy at all. The Great British public knows a great deal of trivia about the Royal Family, Harry’s Apache “The People’s Princess”. But how many of them know that in 2019 files the FBI released files showing that Lord Mountbatten, who was Charles’s favourite uncle and his ‘mentor’, was believed to be a paedophile? That Mountbatten’s former driver had stated that he was made to take boys between ages and eight and twelve to Mountbatten’s residence? How many of them know about the claims that Mountbatten was involved in the Kincora child abuse scandal?

I will concede that some of these allegations could be contested (although new articles and books are being released about Mountbatten every year, and it is possible that real hard proof will eventually come and the number of people making such allegations is very wide), but isn’t it extraordinary that so few educated people are even aware of the stink surrounding such an important member of the Royal Family?^[2] Where was the mention of this sorry episode in The Crown? The average ‘Brit’ probably believes that every single historical figure born before the 20^th century was either a homosexual or a lesbian thanks to the BBC, but ask them what Charlie’s favourite uncle was up to in those Northern Irish Boy’s homes and you’ll get nothing but a blank stare back.

What nobody, not even the Royal Family dares to contest, is that Jimmy Savile was a very intimate friend of Charles, in my view much more intimate than the relationship which appeared to exist between Epstein and Andrew. To go further, I would contend (from what we know so far) that the extent and depravity of Savile’s crimes greatly outrank those of Epstein’s. It is not a competition as such but it does not appear that Epstein was a necrophiliac, or that he paid specific attention to children with special needs – although more could be hidden in the documents.

Andrew may well have shared information inappropriately from his position in government – but given just how intimate Charles’s relationship was with Savile, insofar as he appointed the staff that Savile suggested. Savile was involved in handling the breakdown of his marriage to Diana, Charles also served as a patron for his charitable causes and visited Stoke Mandeville (where Savile raped possibly hundreds children). Diana called Savile Charles’s ‘mentor’, the same term that Charles used to describe his own relationship with Lord Mountbatten of Kincora. ‘Nobody will never know what have done for this country, Jimmy’, one letter from Charles to Savile read.

In 2012, after Savile’s death and before his crimes were revealed his worldly possessions were put to auction at ‘Savile’s Hall’ in Leeds – all proceeds to his tawdry little charity. Read on for the Royal section of his hoard:

‘There were thirty-five lots in total, among them numerous gifts and cards from Prince Charles, Princess Diana, Prince Andrew and Sarah Ferguson: a pair of silver and lbue enamel cufflinks by Apsrey & Garrard, given as an 80^th birthday present by Prince Charles, as well as a pair commemorative American cowboy boots. There were Christmas cards from Charles and Diana; Prince Charles, Princes Diana and their sons; Prince Charles and his sons; and Prince Charles and the Duchess of Cornwall, signed off with ‘kindest regards’, ‘warmest good wishes’ and ‘affectionate greetings’. They were souvenirs from his journey to the very centre of the establishment that gave away nothing of what he had done when he got there.’

Even knowing the faintest thing about this relationship puts you in a firm minority amongst educated people. Would that happen if this country was served by a free and fair press? Of course, a lot of it has been reported, but has it been reported enough, and why was this feature of Savile’s life absent from the recent drama fronted by Steve Coogan?

Ask yourself this: Why, in all of the coverage of this Andrew story, is nobody bringing up Charles’s relationship with Andrew? Royal Press officers should be laughed at when they brief that Charles is really so sodding bloody angry that his doofus brother was mates with a paedo. The Daily Mail should be splashing every single day on excerpts of letters between Charles and Savile as context for the ‘latest Royal Paedo Scandal’.

It is not just a question of paedo-bashing, but other political framing. Charles should be under constant attack from the right-wing press in Britain for his complicity in Net Zero, immigration etc. The Monarchy has been explicitly part of the centre-left establishment in Britain for decades, and as such centre-left republicanism has more or less disappeared. Read the 2004 Queen’s address and see how similar it reads to one of Starmer’s ranting preambles before he starts screaming about the need to arrest Reform supporters, and you’ll grasp why (‘diversity is indeed a strength’).

But despite the Queen rubbing our White noses in diversity for decades this has not changed the attitude of Britain’s dopey right towards the monarchy. Charles has received virtually no pushback from ‘conservatives’ for his extraordinary interventions into politics, perhaps most unforgivably his decision to ‘let it be known’ that he opposed the Rwanda Scheme. This oaf, who turned the coronation service into an orgy of diversity and other woke crap, had the gall to criticise a government policy which would have (hopefully) stopped a few children who have the temerity to get the bus from being attacked by foreign rapists in their towns.

Why is it that Charles, nor his Mother, have ever felt the need to do anything – even make a statement – about the grooming gang crisis? Or other ‘challenges’ caused by the gimmiegration that the late Queen and her oaf son so love?

As late as the 1990s Britain did have a reasonable number of right-wingers who were sparingly sceptical about the Monarchy (Andrew Neil, Ken Clarke amongst others) but apart from Julia Hartley-Brewer it is difficult to name a single established figure who will explicitly state their support for a Republic. It is this fact which makes me much more pessimistic about the future than any number of splinter factions or Tieclip wearing Steam addicts making themselves the faces of the ‘Zoomer right’.

The good news is that I think there is a disconnect between how the Royal family is presented and elemental forces in public attitude towards the royal family. Talk to ‘normal people’ and you will find that, alongside their preoccupation with Starmer’s Ukrainian rent boys the belief that Charles is secretly a Muslim is one of those ‘crank theories’ dismissed in SW1 that it turns out most of the country believes in. Everywhere Charles goes now he has big crowds of people shouting at him that he’s a nonce. To me, that video looks like the beginning of the end.

It wasn’t the Tories who brought down the ULEZ cameras. It was the BladeRunners.

Trust the plan.

---

^[1] Pedants may point to the Dutch Republic here, but my contention would be that the United Provinces which still contained stadtholders was quasi monarchical / feudalistic.

^[2] It’s worth pointing out that there are still people who deny that Jimmy Savile was a paedophile to this day because the evidence against him was nearly all victim’s testimonies, people don’t tend to record themselves committing these crimes. We will perhaps never have conclusive evidence.