The Queen may (as well) be dead, long live the President?

In its futile propaganda war with Russia, Mi7 has been very incessant with a particular approach concerning the health of Vladimir Putin. Watching this, one is interested to see if it will culminate in the man’s having only one testicle, but as it happens, it has taken a more terminal direction more directly than one might have expected it to. According to UK corporate-media (Mi7), Putin “may” already be dead, with a body double making public appearances in his stead.

Incidentally, there’s a lesson to be had in the very presentation of this nonsense that once again demonstrates that the media creation processes described in Orwell’s book were not only real but survive, and they do so because the government described in the book was real and also survives. An early version of the story as it appeared in The Sun claimed knowledge of Putin’s supposed predicament through Mi6. Later, the story was sanitised and the source of the information was attributed to people with the much vaguer descriptor of “intelligence officials”. Evidently, Mi6 didn’t want to be so directly associated with the nonsense, so Winston Smith in the Records Department got the order to make a few adjustments. Luckily, anyone who is interested can still see the earlier account at an internet archive site, here.

Naturally, the claim about Putin’s death has to be qualified with a “may” – although that doesn’t stop it being disowned by Mi6. Using “might” would have been less zany, but Mi7 evidently cannot help itself. And the difference between the two words is important. Saying Putin “might” be dead is reasonable if the one saying it admits no knowledge of why it should be the case – and the state of Putin’s health is something that we can safely assume is beyond the ken of Mi7, despite the frequent bulletins stating the nature of his most recent ridiculous ailment (in fact, because of them). In that case, of course, it would be stating a guess, and would not be based on any data that establishes a cause for demise, but only on the knowledge that, like everyone else, Putin must inevitably die. So, it’s precisely because Mi7 has been weaving a fabric of synthetic reality that it can address an audience, hitherto conditioned to believe Putin’s demise, with the word “may”.

And this is all very interesting, because there is a head of state in the world of whom it is more reasonable to say “may” be dead and using a body double. Indeed, in the light of well documented and increasingly ailing condition of the head of state of the UK, this propaganda to emasculate Putin is all a bit rich, and one cannot help but wonder if the unimaginative types in Mi7 are projecting the problems of their own side onto the other.

As for the Queen, who will be referred to as “Windsor” when there is discussion of the person rather than the title, the circumstances are exactly such, in more ways beyond her ill health suggesting it, so that it is eminently plausible to say of her that she may be dead and in need of a body double. At the very least, it is entirely reasonable to suppose the use of a stand-in.

Self-evidently, she has become too frail to perform public duties, with reports that she complains of not being able to move. When she does make public appearances, elaborate measures are gone to so that she can arrive in a place to be propped up, with the process of transit hidden, because the Queen is embarrassed at being seen in a wheelchair, or with an “assistive cane” (it is not a god, after all). Indeed, by all the accounts, her attendance at an upcoming multiple-day festival to mark 70 years as Queen is severely compromised by her degraded state of health , and she will make appearances on a see-how-she-feels basis. And what appears to be a sudden onset of “an unexplained medical condition” after October 2021 is bad timing indeed for a series of events in this upcoming June that has so much potential propaganda value for a UK Government looking to repair a sense of national unity (which has in fact become irrevocably damaged at the UK Government’s own hand). Considering what is at stake, if on days during this grand set of commemorative events when Windsor does not feel like it, is the UK Government beyond using a double to stand in for the Queen? The answer, with it being apparent that the Queen does indeed have such stand-ins, should be: no it is not.

Ultimately, that sudden illness in October, which has yet to be explained and which so dramatically curtailed Windsor’s public presence, absolutely provides more grounds to say of her that she may be dead than can be said of Putin. Furthermore, given that UK Government clearly has a propaganda prize too rich to spoil by allowing the Queen to literally shuffle off this mortal coil (so that there is no cause to commemorate, and a propaganda opportunity unequalled in recent history is lost), we have to feel that if one can say of the Queen that she may be dead, then it follows that we could trust UK Government to save its golden goose for the laying of the eggs by using a body double.

What we already know about how the Queen will muster a presence at the jubilee events could not discourage anyone who would like to speculate along the lines described above. Proving that the traditional rituals are meaningless rigmarole, the Windsor is going to break with protocol and salute the Trooping the Colour from the balcony (or a window, we might presume, if she feels the need to be seated) of Buckingham Palace†. This would be on June 2nd. On June 3rd, Windsor will attend a service at St Paul’s Cathedral, but will not take part in a ceremonial procession to the event because of concern that her encounter with at least one set of steps, which are evidently quite the obstacle for her, would present a spectacle that should not be on public display.‡

Of course, none of this constitutes a new development. When the Metro, back in March, wrote of how “Buckingham Palace has planned a ‘military-style’ operation to get the Queen to Prince Philip’s memorial service out of view from paparazzi cameras” so that Windsor’s feebleness could not be captured in celluloid – to speak figuratively – it seemed to suggest that she was not capable of walking 100 yards.

Fascinatingly, the same piece relates the St Paul’s Cathedral “military operation” to future events too important to miss so that it is clear that the same elaborate lengths would be used to essentially move Windsor secretly along a secured route to where she needed to be propped up, or to place her in situation before the public appearance began:

To avoid her having to walk around 100 yards from the entrance through the nave and choir to get to her seat, officials are thought to be putting together her own private entrance.

The entire Dean’s Yard would be sealed off under the plans, so the Queen’s staff can park in private next to a side-door, the Sun on Sunday reports.

Six-foot tall privacy screens and potentially a football-style tunnel would be use to stop any photographers getting pictures of Her Majesty.

One source told the Mail on Sunday the Queen does not want to be seen in public in a wheelchair over fears she’d replicate a ‘haunting’ photo of her sister Princess Margaret in the months before her death.

Despite her age and growing frailty, the head of state is still determined to carry on walking for as long as possible.

But the option of wheelchair assistance is being explored by officials so she can get around parts of the Abbey faster and more comfortably.

They are also considering whether to seat her before the audience arrives, rather than her sitting down last as per tradition.

Ingrid Seward, editor-in-chief of Majesty Magazine, said that while the Queen ‘doesn’t want to be seen in a wheelchair’, she may concede so the public can see their Head of State.

She told the Sun: ‘The best way of doing that is to make sure there are no photographs taken. This could be a dress rehearsal for everything at the Platinum Jubilee.

The impression that one can’t help but gain from reading the piece is that Windsor may as well be a cadaver if she is to transported in covered wheeled conveyance only to be unpacked at arrival merely for a show of presence. Also, one must be struck by the primary concern that there should be no photographic record of the preparation of this theatre. Of course, one who wants to speculate along the same lines as described above might wonder if the point is just to prevent independent opportunities for photography that might reveal a tell, irrespective of the decrepitude of the old lady who would be the object of it.

However, the real lesson to learn from all of this – and one that could get lost in unuseful chatter – is that it turns out that the Queen doesn’t have to represent the Crown in order for the Crown to be represented in what might be called a legal role – and this was certainly shown to be true when Charles performed the state opening of parliament this year (as readers of FBEL will know, the Crown can exist without the monarchy because it is the City of London). That being said, whether dead or alive – and the author must reveal that he thinks the latter is the case – what is important for the show of Crown rule at a festival where the legal role involves reinforcing the legitimacy of an incumbent front, is the presence of the symbol of the Queen, i.e. Windsor. For this reason, it can be argued, and especially given Windsor’s very ungodlike and very abject version of human frailty, there may well be need to use a directly representative substitute for her; i.e. a body double.

On this subject, there was coverage, in corporate media in 2020, of a woman formally described as a body double for Windsor. This woman, Ella Slack, was revealed as being a “stand-in” for the Queen, and had been for thirty years.

Marie Claire, when it did its piece on the matter, framed it in the following headline terms:

The Queen has her very own ‘body double’ and nobody knew until now.

This feigned surprise can probably be explained by how subjects of the Queen have been indoctrinated to believe that it is only despots and tyrants, and generally rulers over the “western oriental gentleman”, who have body doubles. Accordingly, even the revelation of this woman with the suspicious and Dickensian name of Ella Slack, did not produce information to fit that pattern – presumably so as to not disabuse the class of people in Britain who might be called “the taxpayer” of their neat delusions: this body double only stood in for the Queen during rehearsals for major events. Marie Claire takes up the telling:

As her majesty has a very packed schedule, she is not always able to attend practice runs, which is when Ms Slack is required.

The two are similar in height and stature, meaning that she can help production work out where the Queen should go and how she will fit into the event.

Ms Slack explained: ‘It started because I was at the BBC and the producer that was doing the cenotaph came to see me and said that the Queen had sent a message to say that when she stood at the cenotaph, the sun was in her eyes and could we do anything about it.

‘I said to him, “Would you like me to come and stand in the position for you?” because all the stage managers were six-foot men!’

Although this extract has been reproduced over-lengthily for the main point that is being made, it is done so for the reader to notice that this Ms Slack was an agent at the Ministry of Truth before she was “the” Queen’s body double.

She was also used in this corporate media coverage as a decoy, for it is highly unlikely that the Queen only has one body double, as the exposure of Ms Slack was clearly supposed to make people believe. Naturally, we won’t be told officially about people who are used as look-alike substitutes for the Queen, but we can suppose that there are such replicas because we know of at least one other woman who was freely described as a “body double” for the Queen, and where a criteria of resemblance must have been used for her selection. In 2008, corporate media announced the death of Jean Emerson (aged 83 – so born at about the same time as Windsor), who had been “used as a stand-in model for drawings of the Queen in 1952 and was immortalised the next year on a Coronation coin”. The coin, and an image of Emerson appears in a 2013 Metro article entitled, Queen’s Coronation ‘body double’ revealed in new scrapbook.

It is with great interest to note that Emerson was in the women’s Royal Navy when she undertook her supposedly one-off role of doubling for Windsor, and that she remained in service – and still under orders – until 1961, at which time she set up a Plymouth gift shop, although simultaneously – without any explanation offered as to how it was accomplished – she spent her days travelling the world. She moved to a retirement home in 2002, and it strikes the author that it might be worthwhile examining photographs of Windsor performing public duties abroad before that date (not that it is supposed any suspect material would have been made available), especially when she was visiting a particularly temperamental country.

Unlike Emerson, who it may have been possible to pass off as the Queen for the purpose of fooling people who didn’t have access to newsprint, let alone television, Ella Slack looks nothing like Windsor – and this would have been a point in favour of revealing her, because it is to continue to guard the real likelihood of proper body doubles (in a particularly effective way as far as ridiculing any potential “conspiracy theory” would go). Slack can be seen in the featured image of this article, and is so dissimilar to Windsor, and in such a ludicrous way, that the revelation of her surely had more significance than merely presenting a decoy. Ella Slack probably in all likelihood was a stand-in for the Queen, but the telling of it smacks of being an intelligence agency joke on the stupid Muggles; i.e. the moronic masses, who are milked and manipulated without even suspecting it.

Of course, none of this deals with the actual fact that, on the very face of its existence, the Crown, and therefore its representative the Queen, is an imposter, having actually been abolished – with the jewel-encrusted symbols of kingship having been physically disposed of – after the Civil War; the Tower of London’s web site tells us so:

In 1649, during the English Civil War, King Charles I was executed, and parliament decided to sell off the late king’s goods. This was an early act of the republic, of which Oliver Cromwell would become Lord Protector in 1653.

Parliament had other plans for the Coronation Regalia. Hoping to abolish the monarchy forever they could not risk the sacred regalia getting into the wrong hands. They were brought to the Tower of London and destroyed. The stones were sold and the gold frames were melted down in the Tower Mint and turned into coins stamped ‘Commonwealth of England’.

“The Crown”, then is a thing of legal fiat rather than of law, and the term “British” (along with its red white and blue iconography), which is usually berated by the revolutionary UK Government as having connotations with white supremacy, but is sometimes useful (as it is now) for duping a vast gaggle of drooling imbeciles, is meaningless, except – as mentioned – as a control grid component for collecting resources and fidelity ultimately for the City of London – and for more reading around this subject, the reader should look at the FBEL article Citizenship As Cheap As Chips: UK Government’s Stick To Beat Britons Is A Rod For Its Own Back. [Indeed, there are many articles on the illegitimacy of the Crown and its parliament to be found at this site by using the search function]. Fundamentally, the point that is to be appreciated, lest this thievery never end, is that anyone who partakes of this “jubilee”, who can connect themselves, even through being owned in slavery, to an England before the long cultural revolution initiated by the Victorian aristocracy (a process of obliterating any semblance of a republic that endured even into the 20th century with the reorganisation of local government and the centralisation of the courts), is taking part in a celebration of the stealing of their commonwealth.

† Who knew that all this time the UK has always had the military parades beloved of other authoritarian states. This particular one has its roots in showing to Londoners the cavalry that would ride them down in the streets if they ever got uppity.

‡ Update, Friday 3rd June, 2022:

From the BBC: