Coat of Arms
Our so-called "defender of the faith" grants we peasants her most glorious indifference to a vital and sacred issue of our historic Liberty and Rights...

On March 30, 2003 a letter was sent to "Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II" to petition her answer to whether or not she still had a duty to uphold and defend the Magna Carta, as sworn to before God in the sight of many witnesses, as our alleged defender of the congregation [Church] and the most Holy Faith.

Below  is her rather puzzling [non] answer to a VERY straightforward question...... For the record, her coronation oath already committed her to this very thing, so why does she refuse to answer? This is one of her few actual duties... other than count money.

She swore her Coronation Oath in 1953: "to govern the peoples of

the United Kingdom (and commonwealth) according to their laws

and customs". Also to preserve for the people... "all rights and



The Coronation Oath is not a contract between the "sovereign" &

parliament. It is a contract between the "sovereign" and each

individual subject and FREE man/woman. It CAN NOT be broken

by unauthorized proxy votes of MP's in Parliament, any more than

a vote by the Senior Women's lawn bowling association could.

[Also see MP Wilton Littlechild v. Citizens of Canada, Court of Queens

Bench of Alberta Docket No. 9012000725, Dec 10, 1990.]



[Note to BCR readers: Another letter was sent [March 2005] AGAIN requesting a clear answer [NOT OPINION] to the question of her current role in honouring and defending the peace treaty between Crown and FREE men and women - our eternal Magna Carta.

If and when a reply is received, it will be posted here as soon as it is forwarded to us. [UPDATE: still no reply as of November 2008]

These are not trivial matters... they are issues of vital significance and enduring principle. If in fact the "Crown" has abandoned the sacred promises and duties contained [and consented to by all parties] within Magna Carta, then the Crown no longer has any consent to rule, and the Government as a whole is therefore ultra vires and has as much authority to govern as, lets say, the senior women's lawn bowling club, or Wal-Mart.

It therefore would be required of us to form a Republican style of government OR select a new Crown.

So why won't the "Queen/Defender of the Faith" answer this very straightforward question? This really is a troubling situation, and we suspect they are hoping the public has no concern for genuine 'rule of law' OR their fundamental liberties and freedoms.

If this is true, then we are in a most grievous state of affairs, as unrestrained government ALWAYS leads to militant tyranny and violence. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely!

Is this the legacy you want to pass on to your children? Think about it!

Recently we were asked if anyone had "in writing" the position of the alleged federal government acknowledging their sacred DUTY to abide by ALL the rights and freedoms protected in Magna Carta, as this Supreme Law demands.

Such a letter was sent October 22/06 by a Patriot supporter, and they have given us permission to publish their response, when it becomes available.

 Please click here to view governments acknowledgement of receipt of the letter in question.


 British royal family privately owns investments in uranium holdings worth over $6 billion through Rio Tinto Mines in Australia. See link showing Queen profiting from use of Depleted Uranium in middle east war. Radiation now detected in Britain -

DU Death Toll Tops 11,000 - Nationwide Media Blackout Keeps U.S. Public Ignorant About This Important Story


London Terror Raid Cop Rewarded By Queen

 LONDON (Reuters) - A senior London policeman who had to apologise for an anti-terror raid in which a man was shot, has been honoured by the Queen, prompting a swathe of criticism on Saturday.



Hold on a moment.... In her letter, our alleged 'protector of the faith' and

sacred 'Great Charter', stated she did not give "personal opinion". So just

what is it she is giving (urging in fact) us in the following address 'to the faiths

of the world'?

Royal Mail is set to honor Marie Stopes, a feminist who opened the first birth control clinic in Britain in 1921 as well as being Nazi sympathizer and a eugenicist who advocated that non-whites and the poor be sterilized, by adopting her image for a new set of stamps. [Click here for article]

Read comments of the Chief of the BC "Court" of Appeal on the Magna Carta.


In light of the indifference shown by our "Crown" to our sacred ETERNAL Liberties,

the following story [below] takes on a whole new significance and weight of concern!

You do not have any legal responsibility to pay income taxes to crooks or liars or thieves

or outlaws or terrorists - and most especially not to those who are all of the above.


Did you know paying taxes is voluntary? None other than the future King of England has set the precedent. <[Downloadable link, or watch below]



"The scariest damn film you'll see this year"

- Todd David Schwartz, CBS
Determined to find the law that requires Americans to pay income tax, Aaron Russo (THE ROSE, TRADING PLACES) sets out on a journey. Neither left- nor right-wing, this startling examination exposes the systematic erosion of civil liberties in America.

Through interviews with US Congressmen, a former IRS Commissioner, former IRS and FBI agents, tax attorneys and authors, Russo connects the dots between money creation, federal income tax, voter fraud, the national identity card (becoming law in May 2008) and the implementation of radio frequency identification (RFID) technology to track citizens. A striking case about the evolving police state in America.



Pro-lifer: no taxes if gov't supports abortion

Christie said the government's requirement that Little fill out a standard form

every year is a violation of his rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights

and Freedoms.

He pointed out that the first line of the Charter noted that Canada is founded

on the principles of "the supremacy of God and the rule of law."

Section 2 of the charter also guarantees freedom of religion, Christie said.

Little exercised due diligence in his efforts to address the problem, Christie

said, only reaching the point of refusing to file tax returns after years of trying

to find another solution.

"His religion compels him not to do this," the defence lawyer said.

Queen's stockbroker raided by police and city watchdogs in biggest ever
crackdown on insider trading.
- Daily Mail UK July 30/08

The Queen's stockbroker Cazenove has been caught up in Britain's biggest ever crackdown on insider trading.

Eight people were arrested in dawn raids yesterday by the City watchdog the Financial Services Authority.

Cazenove admitted that one of the arrested worked at its London offices as a sub-contractor


Meet the worlds biggest welfarian.. ? Too busy to defend the faith?

Reprinted from NewsMax.com
Queen Elizabeth II: $67.3 Million on Travel Last Year
NewsMax.com Wires
Thursday, June 29, 2006

LONDON -- Queen Elizabeth II spent more taxpayer money last fiscal year - $67.3 million in all - because of overseas visits and extra security, Buckingham Palace said Wednesday. Overall, the queen and her household spent 4.2 percent more than they did the previous fiscal year, the palace said in its annual expenditures report.

The government's contribution to meeting the costs of the queen's household is known as the Civil List. The palace said more than 70 percent of the list's $20 million in expenditures paid the salaries of 310 royal staff.

The queen also spent $1.8 million on catering and hospitality, up from $1.6 million in 2004.

A total of $36 million spent by the queen came from grants from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Department of Transport.

The cost of new security measures at the Palace came to about $275,000, the royal accountants said.

The increases came after the Daily Mirror reporter Ryan Parry gained access to Buckingham Palace as a royal footman in 2003 just before President Bush stayed there.

The cost of royal travel rose by 10 percent to $9.9 million, of which $8.2 million was spent on air travel. That included a reconnaissance trip by some of Prince Charles's staff to the United States ahead of his visit there, which cost more than $79,000.

By contrast, a reconnaissance trip by Buckingham Palace staff to Australia and Singapore ahead of the queen's official visit cost $27,000.

A palace spokesman said Charles's U.S. trip - his first with new wife Camilla - "was a very complicated trip. There were a lot of different interests related to the engagement he was carrying out."

During the 2005-2006 fiscal year, the royal family made 14 journeys on the royal train, compared with 19 the year before. They also took 48 scheduled rail journeys.

Alan Reid, Keeper of the Privy Purse, said the royal household has asked the government for $1.8 million a year extra, plus an adjustment for inflation, to run the royal palaces.

The household receives $27 million annually for running the palaces, but Reid said the figure was set in 1998 and is now out of date.

"If we're going to maintain historic buildings that we're responsible for, we will need more money," he said.

 Associated Press.


Is future King abandoning his sacred duty to "defend the Faith" ?


Charles should have interfaith coronation, ex-archbishop insists - By Andrew Alderson, Chief Reporter (Filed: 04/06/2006)

The coronation of the Prince of Wales must be an "interfaith" event, the former Archbishop of Canterbury has controversially claimed.

Lord Carey believes that the next coronation needs "very significant changes" so that it is "inclusive" of other religions that have spread across Britain.

His comments, which are likely to cause a rift within the Church of England, suggest that Lord Carey, the Archbishop of Canterbury for 11 years until 2002, has been won over by arguments from Prince Charles.

The prince, who will become Supreme Governor of the Church of England when he becomes king, has already said that he wants to be Defender of Faith - not Defender of the Faith - when he accedes to the throne.

Lord Carey's comments will set him and the prince against Dr Rowan Williams, the current Archbishop of Canterbury, and other senior figures in the Church of England. Dr Williams has emphasised the need for Prince Charles to defend the Church of England when he becomes king.

In a television interview to be broadcast later this month, Lord Carey says: "When the time comes for the next coronation there's got to be a number of changes. Very significant changes. The Queen came to the throne at a time when the Church of England was really the only Christian faith in the country.

"And there were no Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus around to be in any way evident in the life of the country. Now it's a completely different world, so the coronation oath would have to be looked at more critically.

"It's got to be a much more interfaith coronation service next time around. Prince Charles put his finger on it and there's no way in which the sovereign can be defender of one faith. Although I hope that the next coronation will say very firmly that Christianity is still the dominant faith of the United Kingdom... it's got to be a much more inclusive character."

Lord Carey, 75, who remains an influential figure within the Anglican Church, made his comments in a television interview with Gyles Brandreth, the broadcaster and writer, for Channel 5.

His comments follow a Home Office report, aimed at tackling "religious discrimination", which said that a coronation oath in which the monarch swears to uphold the Protestant faith may not be appropriate in modern, multi-faith Britain.

Lord Carey's comments are likely to be welcomed by Prince Charles. He caused controversy in 1994 when, in an interview with Jonathan Dimbleby, he told of his desire to be Defender of Faith rather than Defender of the Faith.

However, one senior royal aide cautioned against any suggestion that the prince would fail in his responsibilities to the Church of England. "While the Prince of Wales believes in faith, he is a devout Christian and an Anglican," he said.

Lord Carey's comments are unlikely to be welcomed, however, at Lambeth Palace. In an interview in 2003, Dr Williams warned the prince that he must stick to his duty to defend the Church of England. "Unless something really radical happens with the constitution, he is, like it or not, Defender of the Faith and he has a relationship with the Christian Church of a kind which he does not have with other faith communities."

The crowning of the sovereign has taken place for almost 1,000 years at Westminster Abbey. The new king or queen takes the coronation oath which includes a pledge to maintain the Church of England.

In his interview, Lord Carey also reveals that he thinks that the Queen may abdicate if she becomes seriously ill. His views will surprise many royal officials who have always insisted that the Queen would rule until she dies. Lord Carey says: "I think the only thing that would make her abdicate would be if she became ill, or too incapacitated to do [the role] to the full level of her ability.

"And I could see her one day thinking, 'Well I'm not doing my job well, I don't want to be a Queen Victoria in my old age just going through the motions'."

Lord Carey reveals that after Diana, Princess of Wales died in 1997, he and Dr David Hope, the then Archbishop of York, had a crisis discussion and considered making a public statement to defend the Queen against criticism that she had not made a public appearance.

"I consulted with the Archbishop of York and we felt there was no point in coming out into the open, because it would only make matters worse." Lord Carey insisted that the Queen was "devastated" by Diana's death.

Lord Carey said he was upset by Earl Spencer's speech at the princess's funeral. "I was quite opposed to him giving that address. I didn't feel it did justice to his sister... it wasn't fair to the Royal Family... My feeling is that [the Queen] wasn't happy at all about that address and would have liked something that was spoken of Diana's faith."

• Philip & Elizabeth: Channel 5, June 12 and June 19 at 8pm.


Eph 4:4 - 6 There is one body and one Spirit, even as you are called in one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all and through all and in you all.

Though clearly only having a merely symbolic role, the monarchy does indeed have sacred duties inscribed to it by the concurrence of Crown. There can be no compromise of the performance of those duties without a complete collapse of the government of Canada, and other commonwealths, that need both the consent of the people AND Crown to gain license to govern. If the Crown were to (and it appears clear they have) abandon the duties of Magna Carta, then the contract between free men, commoners, titled land owners, and the Crown is null and void.

Never was there a more profound example of this apostasy than that of denying the defend of the most Holy faith, and the belief in the One True Saviour, Jesus/Yeshua.


Christian, Muslim, Sikh and Jewish: multi-faith coronation for Charles
By Jonathan Wynne-Jones (Telegraph, UK)

(Filed: 24/09/2006)


The coronation of the Prince of Wales will be a "multi-faith" event.

Prayers and readings from other denominations and religions, including from the Muslim, Sikh and Jewish faiths, are expected to be included in the ceremonies marking Prince Charles's accession to the throne.

Prince Charles on a visit to a Sikh temple earlier this year

Canon John Hall, the Dean-elect of Westminster Abbey, said that the traditional Church of England coronation service must be revised to reflect society's changes since the Queen's coronation in 1953. As dean, he will be on the committee responsible for drawing up the service.

"The coronation service needs to find the right way of including people of other faiths," Canon Hall told The Sunday Telegraph. "It must be different in some ways because of the nature of society and how things have changed."

He said that the Church must be prepared to let other faiths play a role in the service. "We need to recognise the reality of religion at the heart of our national life. Rather than hold it possessively, it has become possible to help to create space for other religions within our national life. It is leading to inclusion and cohesion."

The proposed changes follow comments already made by Prince Charles, who has said that he wants to be "Defender of Faith" – not "Defender of the Faith" – when he succeeds to the throne.

The Duke of Norfolk, in his role as Earl Marshal, has already begun overseeing a review of the ceremonies for the accession, and will consult with the dean over the coronation service.

Although at 80, the Queen remains in good health, preliminary discussions have already begun between the duke and Clarence House over possible alterations to the service, The Sunday Telegraph has learnt. The Prince's office is conducting a parallel review of the accession ceremonies.

Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, has said that he thinks that the Queen may abdicate if she becomes seriously ill.

Canon Hall suggested that the revised service should follow an inclusive style similar to the Commonwealth Observance, a Church of England ceremony in which people from other denominations and faiths take part by saying prayers and sharing testimonies.

Alison Ruoff, a member of the General Synod, the church's parliament, voiced concern about the plans.

"We should not pander to political correctness," she said. "There is no way that other faiths should be involved in the service. This is a Christian country and so the coronation service must remain exclusively Christian and we should not apologise for that."

Canon Hall praised the prince's success in reaching out to "other communities" within our society and welcomed his desire to be "Defender of Faith".

The prince expressed his wish to be more inclusive in 1994, saying: "I believe that the Catholic subjects of the sovereign are as important [as Protestants], not to mention the Islamic, Hindu and Zoroastrian."

However, Canon Hall emphasised that the Church of England must remain at the heart of the coronation since the prince will be its Supreme Governor when he becomes king.

The crowning of the sovereign has taken place for almost 1,000 years at Westminster Abbey. The new king or queen takes the coronation oath, which includes a pledge to "maintain" the Church of England.

The Dean of Westminster's main role in a coronation service is assisting the Archbishop of Canterbury, which includes handing the archbishop the crown to put on the monarch's head.

As a Royal Peculiar church, like St George's Chapel at Windsor, Westminster Abbey falls under the direct jurisdiction of the Queen rather than that of a diocesan bishop.

In the past 10 years, the dean has conducted the funerals of the Queen Mother and Diana, Princess of Wales, and the service for the Queen's golden jubilee.

Canon Hall, who was the church's chief education officer, will be installed as Dean of Westminster in December and succeeds the Very Rev Wesley Carr, who left the post in February.

Canon Hall claimed that the Church of England still had a vital role to play in the life of the nation despite a continual decline in the number of its worshippers.

"Well over 50 per cent of the population see themselves as belonging to the Church of England. It's a sign of far greater adherence than is often suggested."

[Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/09/24/ncharles24.xml]

Diana Death: Another Cover-up April 4,2007

In a move likely to spark further accusations of a whitewash, the coroner, Baroness Butler-Sloss, yesterday ruled that she will retain tight control over the mass of documents from the £4million Operation Paget inquiry into the Princess’s death.

While some information from the three-year investigation will be made available to the legal teams acting for Harrods owner Mohamed Al Fayed – whose son Dodi also died in the crash – Lady Butler-Sloss argued that other material would remain “personal and private”.

She also implied that neither Charles nor Philip would have to give evidence at the hearing, ruling that it would be quite wrong to release any “personal or private” information to the public.


Prince Charles flies back into vortex of scandal - Nov 9/2003

Prince Charles flies back to Britain today after his two-week tour of India and the Middle East as the scandal over allegations of a sexual incident involving him and a [male] royal servant reaches new heights. [full story]



Prince Charles: climate change battle is like World War II

Masons in Buckingham Palace <[Outside link]


Prince Harry Havana laugh

Trendy ... Prince sports T-shirt representing Cuban revolutionary

PRINCE Harry worships a very different type of leader to his grandmother the Queen.


The Royal was spotted in a trendy T-shirt emblazoned with the face of Cuban

revolutionary Che Guevara when he went out for lunch with girlfriend Chelsy and a pal.


Harry says sorry for Nazi costume. [Other stories on alleged Royal/Nazi ties]

BBC/January 12, 2005

Prince Harry has apologised for wearing a swastika armband to a friend's fancy dress party.

Clarence House issued a statement in response to a photograph published on the front page of the Sun newspaper under the headline, "Harry the Nazi".

It read: "Prince Harry has apologised for any offence or embarrassment he has caused. He realises it was a poor choice of costume."

The Board of Deputies of British Jews said the costume was in "bad taste".

Related Articles:

A spokesman said: "The board is pleased that he's apologised for the incident.

"It was clearly in bad taste, especially in the run-up to holocaust memorialday on the 27th of this month, which the Royal Family will be taking a leadingrole in commemorating."

The picture was taken at the weekend at a friend's birthday party in Wiltshire, which had the fancy dress theme "colonial and native".

Prince Harry, 20, appears to be wearing a German desert uniform and a swastika armband. He is also holding a drink and cigarette.


Rabbi Dr Jonathan Romain, of the Reform Synagogues of GreatBritain, said: "The fact that the palace has issued an apology indicates that this was a mistake by the prince.

"But having been given, the apology should now be accepted."

But the Queen's former assistant press secretary, Dickie Arbiter, said: "This young man has got to come up front and be seen in person making an apology."

Former armed forces minister Doug Henderson MP said the picture showed the prince was "not suitable" for the prestigious royal military academy Sandhurst, which he is due to attend later this year.

"If it was anyone else, the application wouldn't be considered. It should be withdrawn immediately," said the Labour MP for Newcastle upon Tyne North.

The prince, who is third in line to the throne, hit the headlines last year after a scuffle with a photographer at a nightclub.

The Sun reported that Prince William was also at the party - dressed as a lion.

Touchy subject of royal links with Nazi Germany

London Evening Standard | January 13, 2005

Linked by blood but twice divided by war, the royal family's relationship with Germany, its people and its troubled history has long been a sensitive one. The photograph of Prince Harry wearing a swastika has echoes of one particularly disturbing incident involving the family, one which seared itself into the British collective memory - that of the Duke and Duchess of Windsor meeting Adolf Hitler in 1937.

The ex-King Edward VIII and his wife were known sympathisers of the Nazis and their policies, a feeling shared by a large number of British aristocrats who admired the way Hitler was dealing with the Communists.

The Nazis regarded the duke, who had abdicated over his affair with divorced American Wallis Simpson, as a potential ally and a possible head of state for a subjugated Britain.

But his flirting with Hitler's regime threatened to undermine years of work by the royal family to distance themselves from their German roots.

The modern royal family was founded in 1840 when Queen Victoria married Albert of Saxe-Coburg, a Germany duchy, creating The House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. Such was the ill-feeling towards all things German during the First World War that in 1917 Victoria's grandson King George V - an honorary Field Marshal in the German army - thought it prudent to renounce the German name and titles and adopt that of Windsor.

It was a masterful PR exercise, replacing the Teutonic surname with that of a quintessentially home counties town.

His son Edward VIII once declared: "There is not one drop of blood in my veins that is not German." Both he and George VI were bilingual in German and English.

Throughout the Twenties and Thirties, the royals were steadfastly opposed to conflict with their ancestral fatherland. Indeed George V's wife Queen Mary always maintained that Britain had "backed the wrong horse" in 1914.

His son's meeting with Hitler threatened irrevocably to undermine the royal family's support among their subjects.

It took the Queen Mother's steadfastness in the face of German bombs and her visit to the East End during the Blitz to restore public faith in the family.

The Windsors' links with Germany remained a touchy subject however. There was embarrassment in the Eighties when Princess Michael of Kent's father, Baron Gunther von Reibnitz, was exposed as a former Nazi party member and SS officer.

Less well known is the fact that one of Prince Philip's sisters, Sophie, was married to Christopher of Hesse-Cassel, an SS colonel who named his eldest son Karl Adolf in Hitler's honour. Indeed, all four of Philip's sisters married high-ranking Germans.

The prospect of the former Nazis and Nazi sympathisers attending his wedding to the Queen meant he was allowed to invite only two guests.

Profile: Edward VIII

BBC News Profiles Unit | January 23, 2003
By Andrew Walker

As the Public Record Office releases more documents concerning the abdication of King Edward VIII, BBC News Online looks at his life.

King Edward VIII, who became the Duke of Windsor, found himself at the centre of a personal and political storm which shook the foundations of the monarchy.

More than 30 years after his death, his life continues to intrigue and tantalise historians.

Some commentators see him as a pampered playboy, whose louche lifestyle and numerous relationships with married women, most notably Mrs Simpson, made him unfit to be King.

Others believe this outward appearance masked something much darker - a fascination with Nazism, possibly even a brooding determination to overthrow his brother George VI.

The young Edward enjoyed a busy social life
Edward was born on 23 June 1894. His father, who became George V in 1910, was a fierce disciplinarian.

Besides Edward - always called David by his family - there were four other royal princes: Bertie - later George VI, Henry, George, and John.

Edward, good-looking, raffish and easy going, was the pick of the crop.


After becoming Prince of Wales in 1911 and serving in the Grenadier Guards during World War I, he became the darling of 1920s society.

Life was a seemingly endless round of balls, cocktail parties and country house weekends. His penchant for married women was already well-known in aristocratic circles.

During the early 1930s, Mrs Wallis Warfield Simpson, a divorcee from Baltimore, Maryland, was constantly with him.

But there was another, more serious, side to Edward's character.

During the Depression which followed the Wall Street Crash of 1929, he visited poverty-stricken areas of the UK and encouraged 200,000 unemployed men and women to join his back-to-work scheme.

His popularity far outstripped that of his distant father.

Following George V's death in January 1936, the new King faced two huge problems.

The first was his love for Wallis Simpson: as King, and Supreme Governor of the Church of England, he could not marry a divorcee. He would have to choose between his country and his lover.

Concentration camp

The second was that some felt that the new King was too sympathetic to Nazi Germany.

Following Edward's accession, the German embassy in London sent a cable for the personal attention of Hitler himself.

In part, it read: "An alliance between Germany and Britain is for him (the King) an urgent necessity."

Alan Lascelles, Edward's private secretary, gave his own harsh judgment of the situation.

The Windsors met Hitler in 1937

"The best thing that could happen to him would be for him to break his neck."

Within the year Edward, pressurised by the Church of England, the government and royal courtiers, decided to abdicate.

In October 1937, Edward and his wife - by now the Duke and Duchess of Windsor - visited Nazi Germany.

They met Hitler, dined with his deputy, Rudolf Hess, and even visited a concentration camp. The camp's guard towers were explained away as meat stores for the inmates.


At the outbreak of war, the duke served as a military liaison officer in Paris before eventually ending up in Lisbon after the French capitulation.

Hitler, wishing to bring the duke into his camp, made an abortive attempt to coax Edward and his wife to Spain, which was then sympathetic to the Nazi cause.

But the duke soon moved on to become Governor of the Bahamas from 1940-45. It was while he was there that he is said to have made his views explicit.

He reputedly told a journalist that "it would be a tragic thing for the world if Hitler was overthrown".

To an acquaintance on the island, the Duke reportedly said: "After the war is over and Hitler will crush the Americans...We'll take over...They (the British) don't want me as their King, but I'll be back as their leader."

After the war, the duke and duchess returned to France. He died there in 1972, while the Duchess lived on until 1986.

Though the official Whitehall view was that "His Royal Highness never wavered in his loyalty to the British cause", the reputation of "the King who never was" seems destined to remain cloaked in ambiguity.

Simpson's 'Nazi past' led to abdication

BBC News | January 9, 2003
By Emma Simpson

Newly released FBI files suggest the alleged Nazi connections of Wallis Simpson prevented her marrying King Edward while he was monarch.

The revelations are contrary to the long-held belief that the stumbling block was the American's status as a divorcee.

King Edward abdicated the throne in December 1936, following a constitutional crisis, and married her in exile the following year.

These FBI files were written in the 1940s but are now released under America's Freedom of Information Act.

Wallis Simpson was viewed by some as an unsuitable wife

They suggest stronger connections between the Duchess of Windsor - as she was known after marriage - and the Germans than previously believed.

The documents are a combination of surveillance, informants and hearsay.

One memo said that the British Government, headed by Stanley Baldwin, had known for some time that the Duchess was exceedingly pro-German in her sympathies.

The FBI believed she was considered so obnoxious by the British that they refused to permit Edward to marry her.

Reports emerged last year that the FBI also sent agents to spy on the royal couple after allegations that the Duchess might have been passing secrets to a leading Nazi with whom she was thought to have had an affair.

It is suggested the surveillance had been ordered after President Roosevelt expressed concern about the couple's politics.


Queen's and Bush's relationship to ruling bloodlines and cult of death.... 

Go here to learn more on secret societies....

Diana: Fiat Driver 'Shot In The Head' - July 10, 2007

James Andanson, who followed the Princess’s every move in the week before her death, was thought to have committed suicide when his burnt corpse was found in the wreckage of a car in the French countryside.

But now the fireman who discovered the body, Christophe Pelat, has said: “I saw him at close range and I’m absolutely convinced that he had been shot in the head, twice.” [full story]

Queen spared grilling over Diana's death - July 10, 2007

Michael Mansfield, QC, for Mr Fayed, wanted the Queen to be asked about a conversation she allegedly had with the former royal butler Paul Burrell, in which she was said to have mentioned "other forces, powers at work within the state". [full story]

Please see our other related pages...

UK Police State

911 Photos prove hoax

So if the parliament is "supreme", how come a majority of MP's couldn't form a legislature?

Please help us spread the truth, and help preserve your rights and heritage

with a donation of your choosing... Click 'make a donation' button

below. We need donations to maintain this website. Thank You!!!

Safe and secure paypal method