Death of Prince Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh at 99 years of age.

Ant22

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
How do we explain the actions of someone like Prince Andrew? Are the accusations against him smears?

If he's guilty, how does that impact the wider royal family and the queen?

I'd say that the collective assessment of the entire family based on Andrew's pervert tendencies isn't much different to such statements as "all white people are racists", "all police are violent" or "all men privileged". Treating the entire royal family as a collective unit as opposed to a collection of independent individuals is not far off the logic behind identity politics. I understand that they are a part of the same institution, not just a family, but the fact that each of them can only be responsible for themselves remains.

As for price Andrew, rotten apples happen in all families, this is why the term 'black sheep' was invented. And I think it isn't unusual for two children raised by the same parents under the same roof to take completely different paths in life. Why that may be the case is best explained by something that was mentioned elsewhere on the forum, that at this point of the cycle the soul isn't an infant. The current make-up of the soul is an outcome of many previous lives and I guess it's fair to say that Andrew's soul (assuming he has one) is likely to be on a different journey than that of the queen.

What do we mean when we say "useful idiots"... Do we mean they can't be held responsible for their actions or inactions in certain matters? Do we mean they don't know and so shouldn't be held to a standard of accountability?

Laura has responded to this already:
British royalty has been at the apex of global society for centuries, including overseeing one of the greatest empires in recent history. This does not happen by accident. All these is only possible if those at the apex know precisely what they are doing and are competent at it. The proof of this is in the results, that they still maintain their position.
No, the proof that they do what they are told is what you are seeing. And that means they are useful idiots.

And as for this:
Lastly, what do we mean when we say they are "normal people"? Everyone is surely normal to one extent or another. It's the life situation we find ourselves in and how we deal with it that usually end up defining who we are. I'd imagine they are normal in the sense that they are human, experience joy and sorrow, love and hate etc etc. I imagine they hold friendships and other meaningful human relationships, I imagine they have flaws like most / all humans do. Does this not apply to everyone on the planet? So I wonder what we mean when we say normal? It seems to imply we shouldn't hold them to a higher standard than that we would hold "normal" people who hold no position of importance in society.
You pretty much answered your own question as to what 'normal' means.
 

bjorn

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
If the public found out about this, I would fully expect the whole family to be held to account. In fact, my brother will probably end up in jail as a matter of rectifying the situation and showing that we are indeed held to the same standards we holds our citizens.

I'd be guilty to the extent I was a king and I let this happen under my watch but that wouldn't be enough to make me abdicate.

The whole family? That's unreasonable. You didn't commit the crime. Nor the rest of your family. That's just cruel. If you act like that I don't think the royal family will survive.

Anyhow, you won't be given the chance. The Queen finds herself on a fine line between what she wants and what she can do. She can only play one role in the service of others. Be an excellent role model and a supportive person to the nation and try to hold people up to true values. In a sense, she carries the essence of the country. And she did this gracefully.
 

SOTTREADER

The Living Force
@Ant22

I'd say that the collective assessment of the entire family based on Andrew's pervert tendencies isn't much different to such statements as "all white people are racists", "all police are violent" or "all men privileged".

@bjorn

The whole family? That's unreasonable. You didn't commit the crime. Nor the rest of the family. That's just cruel.

Okay, I think I'm getting to where the difference between what you're saying and the view I expressed.

Laura pinned it down for me here

If you wish to hold them to higher standards, that would imply that you have some belief that they ARE different from you in some way, like "chosen by God to rule" or some such nonsense as that.

I do kind of see them as "royals" i.e. different, of higher quality (or should be).

Also from a personal programming perspective, I was brought up to think that your actions not only affect you but also impact your family especially when it comes to transgressions. Not only you will be judged, the family will be judged.

But yes, the situation of the royals is quite complex in that they are embedded within a very nefarious machine. Coming back to Prince Phillip, I think in the end he lived a long life and seems in the most part to have been an okay human being, at least not a criminal like Andrew. For the queen, she's quite old now and she really shouldn't be getting involved in events as they are transpiring. She should be looking after herself at this point in her life. She seems graceful and a sense of pride for the country.

SOTTREADER, are you a parent?

Nope! No kids.
 

Adaryn

The Living Force
I remember driving though France with my parents once and we came across a village with my family name. I remember my mother saying to my father, whilst laughing at him, that she thought she had married an Irishman not a "frog" (an English colloquialism for a Frenchman).

Really? Never heard of that term before! :lol:

Going back to the Royals: +2 for watching The Crown. It's a great portrayal of the Queen and her family and all the major events and scandals they went through over several decades. Apparently it's mostly accurate, though there was some controversy surrounding their depiction of Charles and Diana's relationship, and according to the media, the "Firm" was none too pleased about Charles being shown in a very bad light.
The story of poor princess Margaret (the Queen's sister) was heartbreaking - she had to renounce her true love and ended up very unhappy. Again, duty had to come first, before personal inclinations.
Since Paul Burrell was mentioned, I'd recommend reading "A royal Duty", "which follows Burrell's career as a member of the Royal staff. It deals with his time as butler to the Prince and Princess of Wales at Highgrove House in Gloucestershire, and his move to Diana's staff at Kensington Palace after her divorce from Prince Charles."
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
From Laura

"If you wish to hold them to higher standards, that would imply that you have some belief that they ARE different from you in some way, like "chosen by God to rule" or some such nonsense as that."

Yes, this is right but it wasn't entirely a conscious position I held. 😶

Assuming you are saying we should see them as normal people, same as us? I think this may be the crux of it. I truly do see them as "royals".... Oh dear.

The idea that there ARE certain bloodlines of individuals who are special and inherently capable of ruling is very old. Consider the caste system of India as one example of the survival of this idea. I've written about it to some extent in "The Secret History of the World." The Cs have even alluded to it here and there, and that some bloodlines are more potent than others. However, they also made it clear that such bloodlines can be either STO or STS. The Cs have said that karmic potential marries with genetics. But then, the Cs also made this curious statement:

Cass1998\98-09-05.TXT
Q: (A) Now this supernova that is supposed to explode soon,
will it be soon in the sense of our SEEING it, that is the
arrival of the light from this, or soon in the
instantaneous sense?
A: Optically.
Q: (L) So, this supernova must have already occurred?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) And where did this supernova take place?
A: No dice, baby!
Q: (L) What clue can I follow to determine which star it is?
A: Instincts.
Q: (A) But, if it already occurred, then this means that the
instantaneous effects have already been felt, even if it
was lesser than the optical effects. It must have been
recorded by anomalous changes in genes? (L) Is that true?
A: Close.
Q: (L) So what, in the records, should we be looking for?
A: Sign of struggle out of sequence with pre-ordained
activities of Royal Blood Lines.

Q: (L) In other words, the usurpation of the blood lines?
A: Close.

What can that possibly mean? I followed up with another question about this:

Cass1999\99-12-04.txt

Q: I have two last questions: at one point you said to note the "struggle out of sequence with pre-ordained activities of royal bloodlines." Now, of course, I made the remark about usurpation of a throne, but later I realized that we don't really know what the pre-ordained activities of royal bloodlines really are. They don't necessarily have to do with a secular position, they could be a function. What are the pre-ordained activities of royal bloodlines?
A: Control.
Q: Control of what? People?
A: Close.
Q: Control of the reality in some sense?
A: Not as close.
Q: Control as in STS domination?
A: Yes.
Q: Are there any other pre-ordained activities?
A: Need there be?
Q: Okay, "struggle out of sequence." Loss of control? The royal bloodlines lose control?
A: Only when energies build prior to completion of cycle.
Q: What sign am I looking for? Struggle out of sequence... a rebellion that breaks out... a particular cycle to these events... a period of time?
A: You need to review.

So, we can suppose that these so-called "royal bloodlines" are something put in place by STS controllers and that the control "extends off-planet" in some way.

Note my last question carefully:
Q: Okay, "struggle out of sequence." Loss of control? The royal bloodlines lose control?
A: Only when energies build prior to completion of cycle.

The response indicates that I'm onto something here.

Royal bloodlines come and go. Someone not of "royal lineage" can rise up and take over and create a new "royal lineage" that may last for a time, and then go under when another one rises up. I suppose such are the cycles mentioned above, in some sense. There are many such cycles in history where rebellion against the ruling powers overthrows them and then, later, a new "ruling power" comes along. Or, in fact, the new ruling power is responsible for overthrowing the previous ruling power. In other words, there does not appear to be any truly consistent, long-lasting, apparent "royal bloodline." However, they do all seem to want to connect themselves to the previous bloodline somehow or other, either by marriage or creation of myths. The Greeks, and then the Romans, connected themselves back to the ruling powers of a previous age by asserting that the first was descended from the Greeks who defeated Troy, and the second that they were descended from the Trojans. There are other examples in Mesopotamian and Egyptian histories. And of course, many examples in our more recent history since the fall of Rome. The British claim to be descended from the Trojans via the Romans, in fact. It's a topic that requires some study in order to form any conclusions about what, exactly, the Cs might have meant.

The bottom line is this: yes, there are apparently various types of "bloodlines"; we certainly learned enough about that reading David Reich's book about genetics (and other related texts), but in the end, all of them are connected to each other in some way so I don't think there is any real "royal bloodline" that anyone can point to. I suppose, if human beings were treated like livestock, they could be bred up to have stronger tendencies of this or that, and perhaps, via 4D influence, some of that actually happens. That might create a sort of "royal bloodline" with connections off-planet. If you manipulate the genes, you can manipulate what the soul can "marry" with in some way.

But, what I am getting to is this: the current British royal family really only has the most tenuous connection to previous dynasties and there are many breaks in the chain of genetic transmission. If you do enough genealogy, you see this plainly. You will also see, by studying history, that the British royal family has almost nothing in the way of power at all.
 

dennis

Jedi Master
How do we explain the actions of someone like Prince Andrew?
Blades and Chalices?

When my mother was inculcating table manners to us over tea she would say

"If you stir with a knife you stir up strife"
 

Adaryn

The Living Force
But, what I am getting to is this: the current British royal family really only has the most tenuous connection to previous dynasties and there are many breaks in the chain of genetic transmission. If you do enough genealogy, you see this plainly. You will also see, by studying history, that the British royal family has almost nothing in the way of power at all.
Genetic genealogy can also teach us a lot about those possible breaks in the chain of genetic transmission. Looking at the genetic evidence, one can see that no royal bloodline is actually "pure". The article below (from 2015) reveals just one piece of evidence. How many breaks like this in the entire history of royal bloodlines are yet to be uncovered?

Richard III DNA tests uncover evidence of further royal scandal

When scientists revealed last year that an adulterous affair had apparently broken the male line in Richard III’s family tree, they vowed to investigate further.

But rather than clear up the mystery, their latest genetic tests have uncovered evidence of another royal sex scandal. This time, the indiscretion could potentially undermine the legitimacy of the entire House of Plantagenet.

The skeleton of Richard III, the last Plantagenet king, was discovered under a car park in Leicester in 2012. His identity was confirmed through his mitochondrial DNA, passed down through the maternal line from his sister to two relatives alive today.

But further DNA tests soon uncovered evidence of a family secret. It emerged when researchers at Leicester University compared the Y chromosomes of Richard III and five anonymous male relatives of Henry Somerset (1744-1803), who claim descent from Edward III, the great great grandfather of Richard III.

Since the Y chromosome is passed down from father to son, it should look the same in the descendants of Henry Somerset, the 5th Duke of Beaufort, and Richard III. But genetic tests found no sign of a match. Somewhere in the family between Richard III and the Somersets, at least one man had been cuckolded.

Speaking at the Science Museum in London on Wednesday, Turi King, a geneticist working on the case, revealed her team’s latest attempt to get to the bottom of the mystery. A man called Patrice de Warren, who lives in France, had come forward for genetic testing. He could trace his male line back to Richard III through the illegitimate son of Geoffrey, Count of Anjou (1113 - 1151).

King knew that if de Warren’s Y chromosome matched that of Henry Somerset’s, then the affair that broke the male line must have occurred between Edward III and Richard III. But if his Y chromosome matched Richard III’s, the male line was broken between Edward III and the Somersets.

The test result found neither. “De Warren’s Y chromosome doesn’t match Richard III or Henry Somerset, so somewhere along the line there’s been another false paternity event,” King told the Guardian. “It’s opened up the mystery even further.” Since the false paternity rate is around 1-2% in any generation, she said the result was not particularly surprising.

For all the scientists know, Patrice de Warren carries the ‘true’ Plantagenet Y chromosome, and those found in Richard III and the extended family of Henry Somerset were inherited from another man. “The problem is that we cannot say where the break occurs. All it tells us is that we have to keep looking, and that is what we are doing,” said Kevin Schürer, a genealogy expert at Leicester who is working on the case.

More likely than not, the freshly-discovered break in the male line occurred in the 22 generations that separate Patrice de Warren from Geoffrey, Count of Anjou. But if that branch of the tree is found to be intact, the consequences for the monarchy’s history become far more intriguing.

“If that turned out to be the case, and this is pure speculation, then there must have been a break between the Count of Anjou and Richard III. Which means that before we raise questions about the legitimacy of the Yorkist kings and the Lancastrian kings, there are questions higher up the line, raising doubts about nearly all of the Plantagenets,” said Schürer.

The latest findings do not impact on the modern monarchy at all, says King, because there are so many twists and turns in the way the throne is handed over. But depending on where the breaks happened, they could recast a crucial period in the history of the monarchy, affecting the Stuarts, the Tudors and the Windsors.

The investigation is not over yet. Schürer and King now want to test the Y chromosomes of other de Warrens in the US and Australia, and men in the extended Duke of Beaufort family, an option that has clear advantages over the alternative of exhuming lots of dead bodies and testing those. “The idea is to have a pincer movement and tackle it on a number of different fronts,” said Schürer. “We’re not going to give up the quest.”

The latest findings form part of a new exhibit at the Science Museum which describes the scientific discoveries around the life, death and DNA of King Richard III. The exhibit, which includes a 3D printed skeleton of the king, opens Wednesday, the day before the reinterment of his remains in Leicester.
 

iamthatis

Jedi Council Member
FOTCM Member
For the most part, the royals during the overt British empire, like those today, played largely ceremonial roles. The real power, for a long time, has been in the hands of political types and those behind them. The British monarchy has been used by such people to provide an undue stamp of official or 'divine' authority to the rule of the political class and those behind them. That's why they protect the royals and keep close control over them.

This Ehret article (below) fleshes out that point very well. He details how Queen Anne was not 'The Power' in Britain even during her time (early 1700s), but a representative of one of the many competing pillars of power. It looks like she was subject to intense pressure and deception by warmongering psychopathic forces who sought to use her, in particular the Duke of Marlborough. The article speculates that she was assassinated due to her unwillingness to be the public face of the 'forever wars' of that era.

One can translate this history to the Royals today. Psychopathic forces will no doubt exert pressure on people like the Queen and her family - they're a prime target, given who they are. There's a lot of public resentment these days against anyone who shows values of responsibility, success, character, and morals. So the COINTELPRO machine can easily pump out rumours and assumptions into the public sphere claiming all Royals are evil, and the lazy nihilists find an easy scapegoat to project their angst on, ignorant (as I admittedly was) of histories like Queen Anne's, and ignorant also of how political power actually looks in reality.

 

Wandering Star

Dagobah Resident
It is incredible that this forum exists on this planet. The more I know, the more I marvel at it.

Thanks to the elders for all their work. That allows us to learn a lot with the little time that daily obligations leave us.

The research literature in Laura's books always takes my breath away.

She has read all that, she has understood it and she has separated the wheat from the chaff. Amazing.

Once again I have learned something unexpected from reading this thread.

Thank you "elders".
 

bjorn

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
This Ehret article (below) fleshes out that point very well. He details how Queen Anne was not 'The Power' in Britain even during her time (early 1700s), but a representative of one of the many competing pillars of power. It looks like she was subject to intense pressure and deception by warmongering psychopathic forces who sought to use her, in particular the Duke of Marlborough. The article speculates that she was assassinated due to her unwillingness to be the public face of the 'forever wars' of that era.

The Royal family has been held HOSTAGE ever since. If not earlier. How sad and horrible. So much for being ''privileged''. They are more like victims, really. They have to put on a show. If they don't, just look at the past. Or look at Diana. The Queen has very little freedom of movement in this game.

The real power uses them only because they need their ''seal of divine approval''. This is what a good portion of the population looks up to. Perhaps even more than democracy itself.

That said. Most members of the Royal family are probably not even aware of this. Or only partially.
 

Redrock12

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
In light of the emotions coming up, I think it is important to ask if you've ever read the following from Gurdjieff's Paris Groups (1944), where he interrupts a questioner using some plain-speaking vulgar language:



So, a student asks about a terrible interior emptiness... and Gurdjieff, ostensibly a spiritual master, responds by saying "you are shit." What to make of this exchange? Is Gurdjieff just being rude, impatient, negative? Did his spirituality somehow slip? That's one way of looking at it. Or is he producing a shock in the questioner that can be made use of to detonate another pillar in the false personality? Perhaps it was only this shock that could produce the necessary friction required to start the flame, and begin the process of transformation. Maybe his harsh words were the only thing that were of benefit to this person's soul.

I'm also thinking about all the times that Castaneda was straight up laughed at by Don Juan. It's great to read about and consider in the abstract - the harsh teacher and infuriated student dynamic. But when it happens in our own life, and our own precious self-importance beings to squirm and wail and fight for its territory, somehow it's not so great anymore.

The automatic 'nice, normal, polite' way of interacting ensures that no one ever learns, and we all continue to walk around in a civilized hypnosis. It's a fake way of being. In my life, the people who have been most painful have been my greatest teachers. I initially interpreted their words or behaviours towards me as a personal insult. It felt like a wound, and I turned myself into a victim. Only after some time and reflection have I been able to see that I owed them some thanks. Even if I continued to disagree with their characterization of me, or the situation at hand, the pain offered me a chance to learn something, and another chance to make a conscious choice rather than just react mechanically. This is what it means to learn to disagree, with maturity.

It's been shown that when we face information that runs counter to our beliefs, this registers in the pain region of the brain. So when our beliefs are challenged, it literally hurts. The normal tendency is to double-down into the belief. So one way of looking at it is that pain is information. It's telling you something about yourself. It's telling you something about the other person, too, but my focus these days is inwards. I question my characterizations of others because I am never sure if I am seeing them clearly, or if I am simply seeing what I want to see. This kind of looking takes time and practice, patience. It's more like understanding that each feeling that shows up is a hypothesis in itself, rather than a foregone conclusion, something that is just and good and right.

So the pain is information, sort of like the study material for my current learning cycle. And I'd say that some of the hardest beliefs to confront is my beliefs about myself - that I'm somehow not ignorant, not arrogant. Ironically, self-importance demands that I understand myself to be humble and smart and good. That's how we rewards ourselves, neurologically. We stay away from the pain of looking at ourselves through the eyes of another. I was reflecting the other day that The Work involves consciously laying down neural pathways that associate the reward centre with questioning ourselves and our beliefs, with going willing into the pain of the belief centre, rather than rewarding ourselves in withholding from it. The courage of this manoeuvre is somehow linked to clearer seeing. Perhaps even Seeing.

Aep s such, any chance to question our long-held beliefs is perhaps the greatest gift we can give each other. Every assumption and lie and belief we can remove from our field is making more space for Truth. Even if that truth is simply, "I don't know for sure."

For a long time, I was taught that Queen of England eats babies. So I appreciate this thread - I had a piece of questionable information that had plunked down in my field for a long time. Now I can look at it and try to understand if it is as useful as I thought. Either way, some more space for Truth is being cleared.
Excellent post @iamthatis. Really makes me look at my self-beliefs and my too-fragile ego. The pain of rebuke is hopefully the laying down of the new neural pathway-if I can accept it as such-to a greater awareness of what is required to what you call actually SEEING.
Didn't Gurdjieff say, and I can't remember where-that the first step in The Work is to SEE oneself as one really is? That's a tall order, and one not to be taken lightly.
 
Top Bottom