Bilderberg.org

[TonyGosling]

........Indeed, the Spencers had helped place the Royal Family on the throne. It was another Spencer who, in 1693, brokered the deal by which William III received the support of the noble families that had fought on the Parliamentarian side in the Civil War. Spencer, described as 'the most subtil working villain on the face of the earth', hosted a conference at Althorp, a conference of 'Great Men'. There, King William accepted the principles of limited monarchy. When his successor Queen Anne died in 1714 without producing the requisite Protestant heir, the Spencers were among the same great families who imported the Elector of Hanover from Germany to be King George I.



The new German royals found themselves in a country famed for removing inconvenient monarchs, with a parliament that regarded itself as sovereign and a haughty aristocracy that could match them for wealth. For three generations they spent as much time as possible in Hanover. Admittedly, through the long reign of Victoria, the people became less boisterously critical of their imported royals. But a Spencer, in particular, was always liable to remember that meeting at Althorp in 1693 where aristocracy and royalty had met eye to eye................

http://www.simonsays.com/content/book.cfm?tab=1&pid=413815&agid=2

[CJ]

Very interesting post Tony. Can you tie this into todays construct?

I have theorized that when Charles was a boy/teenager, many well placed families (Spencers) would have had it in the back of their minds, that Charles would need a bride to produce heirs. Diana was bred for her role. It would be an interesting study to look at the potential families of Britain and Europe to see if their was a concerted effort to produce a girl....were there families who had "boy, boy and then a girl? By having a girl, they stopped expanding their family. I know, it would be a lot of work.

With the establishment knowing where Charles` heart was, did they know that Diana was a looming problem? After producing two heirs and one not by Charles, was this her death sentance?

[TonyGosling]

mmmmm

I think it's more likely the royal family just assumed they could take their pick of young virgins from the British aristocracy to have children with whilst carrying on kinky affairs with whomsoever they fancy. Isn't that how it's been done in the past when media and communications as well as deference to the crown were more centralised.

Looks like kinky sex Camilla is here to stay now as she can't be allowed to go off and tell her story. As long as Charles carrys on with his idiotic 'I want to be your tampax' warped sexuality he is stuck with her.

[CJ]

Camilla isn`t going to produce an heir. Sure there has always been bed hopping, Anne went through all her coppers, but started with Bowles. This generation of royals has had to face an inquiring media. Diana was alledgedly a vergin when she married Charles, quite an achievement in the 70`s. The media spent the best part of 15 years speculating who would be a suitable baby-maker....and thats the point.

I haven`t the time, but I`m sure someone can research nobel Families from Britain and Europe. There must be a pattern of births. Charles was always likely to marry in his early thirties and as we know everything moved quite quickly. His potential partner was likely to be 10/15 years younger than Charles. So you`d only need to research a narrow time frame, say 1959-1967. Without doing the research, I`m sure some key families were producing possiblities...maybe even sex selection.

I believe that even your good self must concede that families from the elite marry into each others respective blood lines. Diana`s sole purpose was to produce an heir and if she didn`t accept her lot quietly, then she`d die. Our history is full of it.