For the first time in 380 years, a senior British royal was arrested by the police. The system is now in an existential struggle to defend its legitimacy.

Prince Andrew
© I-System Trend Compass
A fairly spectacular turn of events took place in the UK last week: on Thursday, 19 February, Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, formerly known as Prince, was arrested on suspicion of misconduct in public office. The alleged misconduct (quite a can of worms) was linked to his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein. His brother is currently the king of the realm but was not informed about his arrest ahead of time.

As far as the ordinary deplorables are concerned, the king's full title is: Charles the Third, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of His other Realms and Territories King, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith. When you add up all the "other Realms and Territories," it turns out that Charles is the head of state of 15 "independent" countries.

In other words, these folks are much, much better than you or I, and it is far beneath them to get arrested by the police. The last time a senior British royal was arrested was during the English Civil War when king Charles I was captured and later executed. That was in 1646 - 380 years ago! Thankfully for Andrew, he was not executed but merely held for about 11 hours, then released under investigation without being charged or exonerated. It's almost as though it was a PR stunt of some sort. If so, we might ask, why?

Reclaiming legitimacy?

Granted, king is the king "by the grace of God," so questioning him, his kingship and even his family members is tantamount to questioning God. Still, the deplorables appear to be restless and uppity; they are questioning the legitimacy of his majesty's government. That, as we discussed last week ("The perfect storm slowly engulfing Great Britain"), is one of the key elements that can trigger a civil war, as happened in 1646/47 when a different king Charles actually got beheaded.

Arresting Mountbatten-Windsor and ruining his 66th birthday may have been a spectacular way to reassert the governing principle that, "no one is above the law" (except all the others) and that therefore, the governing system is perfectly legitimate. To be sure, here and there mistakes are made and lessons are learned, but ultimately, people who break the law, like Sir Jimmy Saville, Sir Tony Blair, Lord Peter Mandelson, members of Pakistani and Bangladeshi rape gangs, and even Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, will be investigated, prosecuted to the full extent of the law and convicted if found guilty.

The law, wrote king Charles in his official statement regarding his brother's arrest, "must take its course." The British media jumped on the story, all repeating how nobody is above the law and also expressing some sympathy for the wayward former prince. We all make mistakes, that's for sure. But there's another aspect to this story that the corporate media will never touch: that the royals are ultimately expendable and that the real seat of power will sacrifice them if their hold on power is jeopardized.

The puppet kings

Some in the British structures of power understood the score. British MP Tony Benn (1925-2014) who was born into a prominent political family (his father was Viscount Stansgate) wrote an article in The Guardian in 2003 titled, "To Save the Monarchy," in which he stated that,
"The existence of a hereditary monarchy helps to prop up all the privilege and patronage that corrupts our society; that is why the crown is seen as being of such importance to those who run the country — or enjoy the privileges it affords."
Note, Mr. Benn suggests that "those who run the country" are different from the "hereditary monarchy." In the same article, Benn suggested that a truly democratic transformation "would really frighten those at the top" and that "they cling to the monarchy" as a bulwark — and would "ditch the king himself" if necessary to preserve the system, as they did in 1936, when they put king George V to sleep.

How King George V was put to sleep

The most exceptional aspect of king George V's death is that we know about it, because his assassin, who was another prominent member of the British ruling establishment, kept a diary. The version of history that the ordinary deplorables were meant to accept was that on 20th January 1936, king George V died peacefully at his residence Sandringham House in Norfolk. He had been ill with a respiratory infection for a few days and his death was widely expected in Britain.

The king was watched over by his personal doctor, Dr. Bertrand Dawson (BD), the First Viscount of Penn, and his Irish nurse, Catherine Black. But that story got demolished in 1986, 50 years after the king's death, with the release of Dr. Bertrand Dawson's diaries. As it turned out, George V did not just peacefully die of his illness. He was put to sleep by Dr. Dawson, who wrote in his diary:
"At about 11 o'clock I decided to determine the end and injected 3/4 grain of morphia and shortly afterwards 1 grain of cocaine into the king's distended jugular vein..."
DB gave three reasons for his regicide: (1) king deserved to die in a "dignified manner"; (2) His family deserved this over the uncertainty of an anguished and prolonged death, and (3) if the king did not die before midnight, it wouldn't have been in time; his death would have missed The Times headline and would be reported first in "less appropriate evening journals."

Thus, the good doctor magnanimously granted the monarch a dignified death, cheated the "anguished and prolonged" death, and made it all in time for the morning Times, lest some disreputed publication should tarnish the king's memory by announcing the news first. So utterly dignified and selfless of the hero doctor.

The king himself understood what was being done to him. His dignified last words, spoken to nurse Black as she administered the sedative were, "God damn you." The public's expectation of the king's death was the product of the narrative generated by Britain's media and Dr. Dawson was their source. On the morning of the day when the king died, DB issued a statement to the media that, "The king's life is moving peacefully towards its close." After putting down the king, Dawson then falsified the death certificate, attributing the king's death to his lung disease.

A-gain: the conspiracy theorists get it right!

At the same time, the uppity deplorables weren't all taken in by the dignified narrative. Even as the "reputable sources" dutifully published the official narrative, those with the nose to smell a rat weren't buying it. They were the proverbial nutty conspiracy theorists who adopted the rhyme, "Dawson of Penn killed many men; That's why we sing, 'God save the king.' "

At that time, nobody could smugly demand "link to source?" but per standard practice, the conspiracists were dismissed with scorn, and neither the king's death nor Dr. Dawson's role were ever investigated. In fact, Dawson's star continued to rise throughout his life. It would take 50 years to prove that thee nutty conspiracy theorists were right.

After the revelation of DB's diaries, the scandal was explained away as a personal conspiracy between DB and the playboy prince Edward of Wales who hated his father and wanted the throne for himself. We are supposed to believe that he wanted the throne so badly that he would have his father killed, but then abdicated the very same year? Sure. The king was dispatched by those higher powers that Tony Benn alluded to, which had a great agenda in the works for Europe: World War II was being planned in earnest and Edward's enthusiastic support for herr Hitler would better qualified him for the job of bringing the British people onboard.

There's always an agenda...

These weren't king George V's or Edward VIII's plans, but those of the occult oligarchy that has continued to rule Great Britain to this day. William Pitt the Elder alluded to this power when he said that, "There is something behind the throne, greater than the king himself." This something, if they can put kings to sleep like they're their dogs, is indeed above the crown, yet far in the shadows so that it may act in secrecy. That something is still in charge today. The thrones of Europe (and Japan and the Middle East) are only a part of their facade, in place to deflect the people's attention from the issues that matter to the shiny objects, easy to manipulate and ultimately disposable.
Charles and Rothschild
© I-System Trend CompassNicht fingerpoken ze royals: Crown prince Charles and a banker oligarch Sir Evelyn Rothschild.
Another suspicious moment for the deplorable conrpiracy theorists was when queen Elizabeth died, all of a sudden and out of the blue, I was very suspicious. One day she shook hands with the then Prime Minister Liz Truss (we only have a still photo of this event), the next day she was dead. The press was strangely cryptic about why and how she died, but for sure, it was peaceful and dignified.

The throne rightfully passed to her son Charles, a great friend of the earth, environment, Klaus Schwab and World Economic Forum. His convictions and connections made him uniquely qualified to spearhead the Great Reset, net zero future, digital ID, 15-minute cities and so much more. But all of that could be in jeopardy unless the system's legitimacy can be preserved, which is why the system ruined his brother's birthday. Hopefully it won't be necessary to go as far as beheading...