Archive: The Monarchy: Conspiring with the EU against the British?

First published at Luikkerland, 21 February 2011

As certain members of the Royal Family not only receive direct EU financial payments as part of a system that disenfranchises the British, but also receive financial gain as a result of European environmental diktats for which they are in very vocal support, can it be said that they are engaged in acts of treason? One certainty is that the British government, who have already been established as being a nest of traitors, are concealing the true extent of EU farm subsidy payments to senior royal figures.

It emerged over the weekend that ministers had ordered an “information blackout” regarding how much the Queen and Prince Charles benefit from EU farm subsidies, and naturally suspicions have been raised of collaboration between European bodies, the British government and monarchy to ensure that the Queen and her heir continue to prosper from the same source that denies British subjects representative democracy.

Records show that 80,000 British farmers were paid £1 billion of EU farming subsidies in the past year. Estimates have the Queen in receipt of at least half a million, and Prince Charles at least a quarter of a million – both well above the average payout sum of £12,500. The government says that it is following a ruling by the European Court of Justice that the amount of “corporate benefit” the Queen and Prince Charles receive must be kept secret for matters of privacy, but critics point out that the royals actually represent large farming concerns and the figures should be disclosed on that basis.

The Queen is also set to make £38 million a year because of EU directives for Britain to attain certain renewable energy targets. The potential to raise money through building wind turbines on coastal stretches owned by the Crown Estate was granted as part of a deal slipped through with the Coalition’s Comprehensive Spending Review.

The deal, which will swap the Civil List with a Sovereign Support Grant, effectively means that the tax-payer has lost control of how wealthy and powerful the Monarchy could be through its own means. Indeed, as revenue raising ability from the Crown Estate is something that the Palace wanted from government for a long time, in the light of recent developments, the measure could be a reward for consistent Royal support of the EU project.

Furthermore, Charles has been more political in this area than is expected of him. He has made two controversial trips to Brussels to publically back our EU dictators. In 2008 in a speech to the European Parliament, Charles praised it and the European Commission for their work in the area of “climate change”. He told them that “determined and principled leadership has never been more needed. Surely, this is just the moment in history for which the European Union was created”.

In a very political speech to a “climate change” conference attended by EU President Van Rompuy in February 2011, he asked the EU to act to change attitudes in Europeans so that it was “cool to have less stuff”; a reference to making people go without property in a futile attempt to control the planetary atmosphere, and potentially explosive given his own enormous personal wealth. He also made oblique references to “climate change deniers” being “held accountable” in future – meaning that he would like to see opponents of his opinion punished like criminals – and he complained – perhaps to set up a straw argument, and perhaps also in a process of projection – about conspiracy theories regarding his apparent intention to “undermine and deliberately destroy the entire market-based capitalist system”.

Critics certainly point to the possibility of financial gain being a motivating factor behind Charles’ advocacy of the green agenda and his overt support for the EU in its capacity to drive it. A spokesman for Republic, which campaigns for a more accountable Royal Family, said: “It raises the question as to whether he is seeking to increase his own investment portfolio each time he makes a favourable reference to wind power.”