Back in the days when King Charles III was Prince Charles (who was married to Princess Diana at that time), he told a BBC-TV interviewer that he could "throw a rock into a pond and watch the ripples create a certain amount of discussion". But by merely becoming King Charles III, the former Prince Charles has created "a certain amount of discussion" concerning the identity of King Charles I and King Charles II that he probably does not want to discuss today.
His ex-wife Diana is dead and Prince Charles has now morphed into King Charles III.
But even if King Charles III does not want that "discussion" to now take place - we do!
That "discussion" concerns the execution of King Charles I, and a King Charles II who was crowned at Scone in Scotland as king of a country, a nation, that did not exist. Yet, the former Prince Charles now claims to be King Charles III, so it is fair game to ask about King Charles I and King Charles II who King Charles III now claims to follow.
But if King Charles II was only crowned in Scotland as king of a country, a nation that did not exist, then what did exist in England and in Scotland which were two separate countries? The answer is that they were well on their way to becoming integrated into a united republic!
However, 'King Charles II' decided to ban any mention of that republic by signing an 'Act of Oblivion' which made it a criminal offence to even refer to that united republic.
King Charles II performed his act of fantasy, and that act was certainly not 'magic', because any fool could see that what King Charles II was proclaiming was absurd at face value, in order to stop, not create discussion.
Because King Charles II wanted everyone to believe (under penalty of criminal law for not believing), that the years between 1649 and 1660 did not exist, and that they had never existed!
King Charles II came up with a silly word to explain those disappearing years. He called it the 'Interregnum'.
But the fact is, those years did exist, and there was a united republic on the mainland island of Great Britain. But if you relied on your own common sense and refused to go along with King Charles II and his mythology, you would be breaking his law that commanded you to never mention what took place between 1649 and 1660! That yesterday, he said, never happened! But it did happen. What did not happen is the fantasy lie now being endorsed by King Charles III.
King Charles II of England was never crowned King Charles II of Scotland, he was merely "proclaimed". The military sycophants who enforced belief in a chronology that never happened, did so with the help of a communications organization which they created!
What is more important to anyone who is interested in the story of free radio or communications in general, is that these folks of 1660 created an entity which was used in 1967 to shut down the offshore radio stations. But back in 1967, they went further, and they extended their power over the Isle of Man by proclamation - in order to silence (by "outlawing"), 'Radio Caroline North' .
Those "ripples" that Prince Charles once referred to on BBC-TV, are the same ripples of timely reaction to the actions taken by individual human beings who included King Charles I and King Charles II. Now we have a King Charles III to contend with, and apparently he intends to carry forward the same bedrock of lies and deceit! If he did not, he would certainly not call himself King Charles III.
The Establishment in London, England during this first segment of the Twenty-first Century in London, is still doing its best to obfuscate reactions to the past by diverting your attention elsewhere. However, thanks to the invention of the world wide web and the preservation of contemporary news reports kept elsewhere outside of the clutches of British censors, we can all view those "ripples" from the past, for ourselves. They are not obfuscated.
The real story is not the same as the one that you were taught at school, or the one that Prince Charles alluded to on BBC-TV. In fact, with the song and dance show being created over the death of his mother, her son, who is now King Charles III, many will be extremely upset to know that this issue is now being discussed today. Especially today, the day of his mother's funeral which has turned into something quite horrific as a political pantomime, rather than an act of genuine mourning over a family loss of companionship.
What is being recalled today is more of a yesterday that never happened.
It is an obfuscated, skewed and absurd lie that stretches all the way back to the years when a King of Scotland went to London and was also crowned King of England. It was the son of that King who then became King Charles I, and it was King Charles I whose head was officially, and with all due pomp and circumstance before a general audience gawping at the spectacle, then had his head severed from his body by the blow of axe wielded by an Official Executioner.
To anyone who wants to challenge that statement it is suggested that you first should take a look at the title of King Charles III and what that title really represents. It is itself a rather sick joke, but the death of Charles' first wife was anything but a laughing matter, and many, many questions still swirl around her tragic demise. Yet on this day she is part of the obfuscated story of the man who was once known a Prince Charles, the man who threw an imaginary rock into an imaginary pond.
Charles, it was you who suggested, with your wife Diana sitting by your side, that if you watched the "ripples" you could "create a certain amount of discussion".
Here is that discussion.
We call it 'Pebble Theatre'.
Copyright 2021 with all rights reserved.