The coronation of King Charles is likely to be a sombre, if not menacing, affair if the mood in London this week is anything to go by. Roads around central London are closed and lined with police vehicles of all descriptions, with hundreds if not thousands of police in layered high visibility and bulletproof vests wielding machine guns and manning checkpoints in preparation for the coronation of this unpopular man. Grim officials look briefed to expect the worst; sturdy wire metal barriers will certainly keep the ‘riffraff’ a good distance away.

A taxi driver told me that business in London is bad and that this city, with its increasingly punitive restrictions on the ordinary man, is “eerily quiet”. Due to raised congestion charges, it now costs him almost £1,000 to drive on the streets that his taxes maintain before he can even start to earn his living.

He kindly took this photo of me on the empty streets in front of St Paul’s Cathedral, where Charles and Diana were married in 1981.

I was 14 in July 1981 when sweet Diana Spencer married Charles Windsor. Like millions of people around the world, I tuned in to the telly to watch the so-called fairy-tale royal wedding. According to reports the events marked a highpoint in the royal family’s popularity, watched by a global television audience of 750 million in 74 countries. In Britain a public holiday was declared and 600,000 people lined the streets of London.

Watching on our first family television set I felt conflicted and bemused. In the run up to the wedding we had seen a shy and very young girl splashed all over the media. Just turned 20 and six years older than me at the time, I felt sorry for her having to get married to such an old man, as I perceived Charles to be at 33. I wondered what her parents thought and why they had agreed. The notion of any physical intimacy between the two was abhorrent to my young romantic heart and I just could not make any sense of it. It felt as if Diana had been sold and I wondered at what price. It was not the large age difference that was striking but rather the youthfulness and obvious naivety of Diana – she was but a girl and, as a girl too, I empathised with her. According to The Sun newspaper “Following a whirlwind romance, the pair got engaged when Diana was 19 and married when she was 20 years old.”

The inappropriate glamorisation of a marriage between this older prince and young bride was not lost on me. That this was not a fairy tale wedding nor a match made in heaven was corroborated by Diana’s subsequent appearances, where she often looked miserable, subdued and/or very thin. Hounded and objectified by a heartless media Diana became their Barbie doll to be dressed and undressed.

Navigating unchartered and often hostile territory with intuition, a sense of humour and strong resolve, the young Diana grew into a powerful woman, yet to her royal family, she was made to feel like a non-starter and little more than a broodmare.

At school, British children learn this little phrase to remember by rote the fate of King Henry VIII’s six wives. It goes: divorced – beheaded – died – divorced –  beheaded –  survived.

The brutal power of the monarchy and the audacity to act as a law unto itself is well-known throughout history. Not only did Henry kill two wives, among others he slaughtered Catholics during his reign and declared himself supreme head of the Church of England. What a dark basis for a religion. Henry robbed the people and the monasteries, created wars and spent lavishly. This is the sort of behaviour that kings were permitted in the old days, or, more likely, people were held in such murderous servitude there was little they could do to dissent. However, even today, the British people tend to turn a blind eye.

Instead of demanding accountability for the often-shocking royal goings-on, until recently we have accepted their use as opium for a sick nation, to be exploited by the unscrupulous whenever a major distraction is needed.

In 1997, at the age of 36, Princess Diana died following a car crash in Paris when out with her friend, lover and filmmaker Dodi Al Fayed. Dodi’s death in the crash was all but ignored and many questions raised about this devastating event were quashed by the controlled investigation that followed. From what I recall, it laid the blame for Diana’s death firmly at the door of the paparazzi who were trailing the lovers, and the driver of the vehicle, who was alleged to be drunk.

Despite this, there is a 1995 note in Diana’s handwriting that says, “…my husband is planning “an accident” in my car, brake failure and serious head injury in order to make the path clear for him to marry Tiggy…”

At least one documentary film that has been made since has revealed that Diana knew she was going to die young and had said as much. It reports that “She would say, ‘I think they are going to kill me. I am going to finish in an accident — helicopter, plane or car crash.'” Who are they to whom she refers I wonder? Are they the same THEY exploiting us or is this ‘they’ closer to home? Who would have wanted Diana out of the way? Her cold, cuckolded husband who was in a relationship with another, or a broader conspiracy? Certainly not the British people who loved her and to whom she was known as the ‘people’s princess’.

There’s a considerable body of evidence to suggest that Princess Diana was murdered.

Whether this is true or not, and who the guilty parties may be, needs to be fully and openly discussed. In fact, the time for this discussion is long overdue. At a time when great deceptions are being revealed, it is essential to re-visit previously unspeakable possibilities. Things that have been too ghastly to contemplate, or have been hastily dismissed as ‘conspiracy theories’, need to be re-examined, to see what they reveal about our illusion of civilisation and those we are given to worship. Murderous and treasonous behaviour by a king may have been simply unavoidable in the middle ages, but there is no place for it in an enlightened age.

Another reason for London’s gloomy atmosphere is no doubt due to additional concerns about the new King of England’s allegiance to the World Economic Forum.

In case you are unaware of the WEF, this is the unsavoury bunch that calls us ‘hackable animals’.  It appears that Charles is part of this club that would have us reduced, chipped, prodded and subdued with unlimited genetic modifications and surveillance; the club that wants to rob us of our possessions, our personal data and our sovereignty.

Would Charles be king in service to the British people, or would this king be a WEF puppet king? In attempting to add royal legitimacy to this megalomaniac cabal and ‘The Great Reset’ in Davos in 2022, he has shown where his loyalties truly lie, in my opinion – and it is not with the British people. A clear illustration of this is his recent royal assent to new UK laws that allow gene-edited foods for us, the common people, to go unlabelled, despite eating only strictly organic food himself.

The British people are sovereign, and I wonder whether this has been forgotten by the British monarchy. Sovereign beings are unique, stand-alone beings; we are our own land, our own territory, not to be bought or sold. We manage ourselves and solve our own problems and do not subscribe to the corporate cabal’s anti-human ideology disguised as a “think tank”. We act on our conscience and know right from wrong. We know that we are all equal and no one is above the law. We know that people are innocent until proven guilty.

JP Sears captures the mindset of King Charles’ WEF friends in this humorous clip. Sadly, Charles appears to be integral to The Great Reset, in which it is planned that we the people who pay for everything will own less and less until we own nothing at all and are happy slaves, none the wiser about our true power and purpose here on this beautiful earth.

Our current options as humanity, according to Charles’ WEF associate Yuval Noah Harari are either to be destroyed or upgraded.

If Charles has pledged allegiance to the WEF cabal, and we are now being asked by the Archbishop of Canterbury, a man with no scientific expertise whatsoever, who gaslit many into taking experimental covid vaccinations in the name of Jesus: “Trust (the scientists) ….they may be wrong, but they know what they’re doing better than we do”, and more recently appears to have been caught in a serious lie to colleagues, to pledge allegiance to him, in a so-called “homage of the people”…where does this leave us if we comply?

To help navigate the answer to this question, I will leave you with gentle words borrowed posthumously from Diana, Queen of Hearts, “ Only do what your heart tells you.”

https://drtesslawrie.substack.com/p/london-eerily-quiet-on-the-coronation