In an authoritative publication appeared “compromising evidence” on the freshly baked monarch
Photo: REUTERS
Very soon, on May 6, the coronation of the new British monarch is expected. The last time a magnificent ceremony was held 70 years ago, when the mother of the current king, Elizabeth II, ascended the throne. But a lot has changed since then. The conservatism of “good old England” was preserved only in separate taps over the sinks. According to official statistics, in today’s London, 20% of the inhabitants are Asians, and 13% are Africans (mostly from former British colonies). And the ideology in the kingdom, as in the whole West, has long been different: liberal democracy.
Its main idea is simple. Any race and any gender is good – except for the natives of Britain (or any other Western country) represented by white men of normal orientation. Which, from the point of view of the liberals, only remains to repent for their “white privileges”. Do not look for logic here, the London media machine will label anyone as the “master villain”.
But dig a hole for another. Now it has suddenly become clear that the main British racist is … the very son of the recently deceased Elizabeth, the 74-year-old successor of the dynasty – Charles.
41 THOUSAND SLAVES
The Skirmisher of the Pogrom Campaign – an influential publication “Guardian”. “British kings and queens supported slavery and grew rich from it,” is the headline of a typical article in this London newspaper for the month before the coronation.
The text itself is at the level of a school essay copied from Wikipedia: a couple of phrases about each of the previous monarchs, starting from Shakespeare’s time. For example: “In 1636, the then King Charles I stood at the origins of the First Society of Black Slaves, which brought free workers for plantations to the British colony – the Caribbean island of Barbados.”
In addition to the name, that Charles has nothing in common with the current Charles III, they even belong to different dynasties, and indeed, four hundred years have passed – but who cares about the truth.
The closer to the current century, the hotter. “George II, who ruled from 1727-60, owned shares in the South Sea Company, which transported 41,923 slaves from Africa to the Caribbean in a third of a century.” Rate the figure; would have written simply “40 thousand” – it would not have looked so convincing.
Further. Before ascending the throne, Charles III and his wife Camilla traditionally live in a palace called Clarence House. It was built in the 19th century for the then heir to the throne, who later became monarch William IV. Under him, slavery (in 1833) was abolished – but the newspaper focuses on something else: “King Willie” was friends with the slave-owning planters and “approved of the exploitation of man by man” …
No, we do not defend the bloodsuckers and colonialists, but the attack on Karl was made so primitively that even the anti-Russian agitation of the Western media will be more elegant.
BUSINESS IN THE ESTATE
And here is the screaming headline of another article: “The royal family made a billion pounds on their estates by dubious methods.” In fact, everything is correct: almost from the Middle Ages, the monarch and members of his family have allotments – plots of land with palaces-castles in the elite places of Albion.
The crowned owners can dispose of them in any way they like: rent, farm, sell crops. Literally, Carl runs one of the largest organic food manufacturing firms in the Islands; although, according to his own statements, he spends half of the profits on charitable deeds. It is difficult to check this – the network of royal charitable foundations has dozens of legal entities, you will get tired of flipping through the reports.
Although if read the article, it turns out that the astronomical amount of profits is just a kind of “calculation of income for 70 years, taking into account inflation.” That is, most likely, the figure is taken from the ceiling and pulled up to a billion – any journalist will tell you that you need to put a “fact bomb” in a good headline – but no one will look further anyway.
But we don’t stop! When Charles was still crown prince, a large part of the profits from the estates went to a luxurious life – “secretaries, valets, gardeners, cooks, grooms and farm workers,” the newspaper reports.
It is interesting that the really dubious deeds of the king, like millions of donations from Arab sheikhs to his charitable foundations, are not mentioned in the newspapers today. Still, Middle Eastern firms are important advertisers in the media market, there is an economic crisis in the yard, and money is badly needed. In addition, these Arab magnates are friends of the Americans …
You ask – but what does the United States have to do with it?
WASHINGTON EARS
So who is behind the daring media attack on the old prince? The Guardian is part of the Guardian Media Group, which is in turn owned by a foundation called the Scott Trust Limited. We look at the board of directors thereof. And immediately open.
Raz – Viviana Schiller, former president of American public radio (NPR), ex-deputy editor of NBC News (again – USA).
Two are David Olusoga, half Nigerian; having moved to England, he became a historian and exposer of the “crimes of the times of colonialism”; one of his works bears the telling title: The Forgotten Slave Owners of Britain. Just a verbatim coincidence with the theses of the Guardian’s pogrom campaign against Karl … and the equally pogrom movement BLM (“black lives matter”) from the USA. Whose ardent supporter, by the way, is Olusoga.
And three: the latest head of the Scott Trust is Alex Graham, a Scottish national whose “love” for the English is known.
However, Karl is a strong player who has been dreaming of the throne for decades and does not want to part with the crown. So this is clearly not the last stage of “compromising wars” in the spirit of our dashing nineties, and we will find out very soon how Buckingham Palace will respond to the White House.
