On 20th January 1936, king George V, grandson of Queen Victoria and son of king Edward VII, died peacefully at his residence Sandringham House in Norfolk. George V had been ill with a respiratory infection for a few days and his death was widely expected in Britain. The king was watched over by his personal doctor, Dr. Bertrand Dawson (BD), the First Viscount of Penn, and his Irish nurse, Catherine Black.

George V’s son Edward, playboy prince of Wales became king, Edward VIII. Apart from the press generated during the short, scandal-ridden reign of Nazi enthusiast Edward VIII, that was that. New era, new king, modernity, communist threat from the USSR, economic depression and the rise of herr Hitler in Germany were the main news generators of the day. But the story got a massive new twist in 1986, 50 years after the king’s death, with the release of Dr. Bertrand Dawson’s diaries.

The quiet regicide

As it turned out, George V did not just peacefully die of his illness. He was put to sleep by his doctor who wrote in his diary: “At about 11 o’clock I decided to determine the end and injected 3/4 grain of morphia and shortly afterwards 1 grain of cocaine into the king’s distended jugular vein…” DB gave three reasons for his regicide: (1) king deserved to die in a “dignified manner”; (2) His family deserved this over the uncertainty of an anguished and prolonged death, and (3) if the king did not die before midnight, it wouldn’t have been in time; his death would have missed The Times headline and would be reported first in “less appropriate evening journals.”

The king’s “dignified” last words

DB claimed that he made the decision himself, but noted that “the family” wanted him to act “without unnecessarily prolonging the king’s life…” Thus, the good doctor magnanimously granted the monarch a dignified death, cheated the “anguished and prolonged” death, and made it all in time for the morning Times, lest some inappropriate publication tarnish the king’s name by announcing the news first. How utterly dignified and selfless of the hero doctor.

The king himself was aware. His dignified last words, spoken to nurse Black as she administered the sedative were, “God damn you.” The public’s expectation of the king’s death was the product of the narrative generated by Britain’s media and Dr. DB was their source. On the morning of the day when the king died, DB issued a statement to the media that, “The king’s life is moving peacefully towards its close.” After putting down the king, Dawson then falsified the death certificate, attributing the king’s death to his lung disease.

Dawson of Penn killed many men…

But even as the “reputable sources” dutifully contrived the requisite narrative, a small part of the British public – those with the nose to smell a rat weren’t buying it. They were the proverbial nutty conspiracy theorists who adopted a rhyme, “Dawson of Penn killed many men; That’s why we sing, ‘God save the king.’ ” At that time, nobody could smugly demand “link to source?” but per standard practice, the conspiracists were dismissed with scorn, and neither the king’s death nor Dr. Dawson’s role were ever investigated. In fact, Dawson’s star continued to rise throughout his life. It would take 50 years to prove the nutty conspiracy theorists right.

Nothing to see here folks, disperse!

After the revelation of DB’s diaries, the scandal was explained away as a personal conspiracy between DB and the playboy prince Edward of Wales who hated his father and wanted the throne for himself. We are supposed to believe that the playboy prince who was immersed in enjoying a life of socialite debauchery, wanted the responsibilities that went with the throne so badly that he would have his father killed, and then abdicate the very same year? That seems unlikely, methinks.

The king was dispatched by higher powers which had great plans in the works for Europe at the time. World War II was being planned in earnest and perhaps these higher powers thought that Edward’s enthusiastic support for herr Hitler would be useful to overturn the British people’s visceral rejection of Nazism.

These weren’t king George V’s or Edward VIII’s plans, but those of the occult oligarchy that has continued to rule Great Britain to this day. William Pitt the Elder alluded to this power when he said that, “There is something behind the throne, greater than the king himself.” This something, if it can put kings to sleep like dogs, is indeed above the crown, yet far in the shadows so that it may act in secrecy.

We must assume that this something, since it never answered for one or more acts of regicide, is still in charge today. The thrones of Europe (as well as Japan and the Middle East) are merely a deceptive facade, in place to deflect the people’s attention from the issues that matter to the shiny objects that generate news headlines, easy to manipulate and ultimately disposable.

Why bother?

Well, if kings and queens are little more than disposable props on the façade of power, then why bother with them at all? The simple answer is, because it works. I shared this in an earlier article, but it may be worth revisiting: British MP Tony Benn explained the value of royalty thus:

“Above all, the existence of a hereditary monarchy helps to prop up all the privilege and patronage that corrupts our society; that is why the Crown is seen as being of such importance to those who run the country, or enjoy the privileges it affords.”

I recently came across a concrete example of exactly what Tony Benn was saying. On 28 June this year, London Mayor Sadikh Khan and king Charles III officially switched on the “climate clock” which counts down the time to 2030, the estimated deadline to limiting global temperatures to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. Here’s how one British subject commented on this event on Twitter:

“I’m a huge monarchist and see deep value in Constitutional monarchies, but stick to statecraft and civic matters not hot button activism. Still, God Save the King.”

The man clearly disagreed with the policy, but effectively muzzled himself by affirming his allegiance and loyalty to his masters. This example shows the inclinations of many of the monarchy’s subjects: they’ll cultivate loyalty and allegiance over and above their own interests and acquiesce to policies they would otherwise reject. As to seeing the “deep value” in constitutional monarchies, that would clearly be in the eyes of beholders, many of whom seem to have their eyes firmly fixed on the shiny object that the monarchy represents.

Did the queen have a dignified death also?

When queen Elizabeth died, all of a sudden and out of the blue, I was very suspicious. One day she shook hands with the then Prime Minister Liz Truss and the next day she was dead. Instead of the usual video report of the meeting (as we saw in the “kissing of hands” ritual with Boris Johnson, David Cameron and prior PMs), we only got a single still photograph where the queen is looking at something, but not at Liz Truss’s face.

Knowing what I know about the death of George V, I’m still more suspicious about it all now, at risk of being dismissed as a nutty conspiracy theorist. Who would believe such things when the reputable press told us all we needed to know. Nothing to see here folks, more along, Vladimir Putin is an evil dictator, we have global boiling,  and all hail, the new king is a bonified climate crusader, an enthusiastic supporter of the Great Reset, distinguished member of the World Economic Forum and friend of Klaus Schwab.

Perhaps it is time for the ‘loyal subjects’ to lift the veil of monarchy and look past the pomp and circumstance at that “something” and the plans they have for their children in their 15-min ghettos.

Source