BDTR| They have long been famed for their love of lavish banquets and rich recipes, but what is less well known is that the British royals also had a taste for human flesh.
A new book on medicinal cannibalism has revealed that possibly as recently as the end of the 18th century British royalty swallowed parts of the human body.
The author adds that this was not a practice reserved for monarchs but was widespread among the well-to-do in Europe.
Even as they denounced the barbaric cannibals of the New World, they applied, drank, or wore powdered Egyptian mummy, human fat, flesh, bone, blood, brains and skin.
Moss taken from the skulls of dead soldiers was even used as a cure for nosebleeds, according to Dr Richard Sugg at Durham University.
Dr Sugg said: ‘The human body has been widely used as a therapeutic agent with the most popular treatments involving flesh, bone or blood.’
The history of medicinal cannibalism, Dr Sugg argues, raised a number of important social questions.
‘Medicinal cannibalism used the formidable weight of European science, publishing, trade networks and educated theory.
‘Whilst corpse medicine has sometimes been presented as a medieval therapy, it was at its height during the social and scientific revolutions of early-modern Britain.
‘It survived well into the 18th century, and amongst the poor it lingered stubbornly on into the time of Queen Victoria.
‘Quite apart from the question of cannibalism, the sourcing of body parts now looks highly unethical to us.
‘In the heyday of medicinal cannibalism bodies or bones were routinely taken from Egyptian tombs and European graveyards. Not only that, but some way into the eighteenth century one of the biggest imports from Ireland into Britain was human skulls.
‘Whether or not all this was worse than the modern black market in human organs is difficult to say.’
Earlier this year what looks like a young boy naked is filmed and pictured trying to escape Buckingham palace NAKED. Royal spokespeople said it was a hoax, but they would wouldn’t they?
The boy escaping Buckingham Palace is NOT A HOAX
The Royal perverted Family wants us to think its a hoax, but ITS NOT! All the people calling it a hoax are all Royalists and Daily Mail readers.
Lets not forget the time a teenage girl’s body was found outside Sandringham Castle and let us not forget the Royals Paedophile friends ….A LOT OF THEM ALL WITH OBE’S!
It appears to show a man climbing down from a window before falling spectacularly.
The incident was captured by bystanders standing over the road from the royal residence.
It is not known whether the man was injured in the fall.
Was he trying to escape? If so was he being held prisoner? If so WHY? and WHY Buckingham Palace?
It is also known children were abused in Buckingham Palace, Sandringham Castle and Balmoral castle.
VIP paedophile ring ‘abused teenage boy INSIDE Buckingham Palace and Balmoral Castle’
A teenage boy working at Buckingham Palace revealed he was groomed and sexually abused by a VIP paedophile ring there. The lad was also assaulted at the Royal Family’s Scottish retreat Balmoral, according to shocking Home Office files, reports the Sunday People.
In a heartbreaking note, the boy – then just 16 – told how he was the victim of “exploitation of the highest order”.
The chilling claims could now be the subject of a police investigation into historic allegations of child sex abuse in the 1970s and 80s – linked to MPs and powerful figures.
The disturbing account was passed directly to the then Home Secretary Leon Brittan, but he ruled it was “not practical” to investigate.
Campaigning Labour MP Tom Watson said: “I’m sure the Palace will want to co-operate with any inquiry.”
A Palace spokesman said: “The Royal Household takes any allegation of this nature seriously and would act to address any specific allegations or investigate specific information.”
The Royal Family is to be granted absolute protection from public scrutiny in a controversial legal reform designed to draw a veil of secrecy over the affairs of the Queen, Prince Charles and Prince William.
Letters, emails and documents relating to the monarch, her heir and the second in line to the throne will no longer be disclosed even if they are in the public interest.
Sweeping changes to the Freedom of Information Act will reverse advances which had briefly shone a light on the royal finances – including an attempt by the Queen to use a state poverty fund to heat Buckingham Palace – and which had threatened to force the disclosure of the Prince of Wales’s prolific correspondence with ministers.
Lobbying and correspondence from junior staff working for the Royal Household and Prince Charles will now be held back from disclosure. Buckingham Palace confirmed that it had consulted with the Coalition Government over the change in the law. The Government buried the plan for “added protection” for the Royal Family in the small print of plans called “opening up public bodies to public scrutiny”.
Maurice Frankel, head of the Campaign for Freedom of Information, said that since the change referred to communications written on behalf of the Queen and Prince Charles it might be possible for “park keepers working in the royal parks” to be spared public scrutiny of their letters written to local authorities.
The decision to push through the changes also raises questions about the sincerity of the Liberal Democrats’ commitment to government transparency. In opposition, senior Liberal Democrats frequently lined up to champion the Freedom of Information Act after it came into force in 2005.
Ian Davidson, a former member of Parliament’s Public Accounts Committee (PAC), told The Independent:
“I’m astonished that the Government should find time to seek to cover up royal finances. When I was on the PAC what we wanted was more disclosure not less.“Every time we examined royal finances we found extravagance and indulgence as well as abuse of expenses by junior royals.“Everywhere we looked, there were savings to be made for the Government. This sends the wrong message about public disclosure and accountability.”
Paul Flynn, another member of the committee, described the special protection for the Royals as “indefensible”. He said: “I don’t think it serves the interests of the public or the Royal Family very well.”
Mr Frankel said he believed that Prince Charles was the driving force behind the new law.
“The heir to the throne has written letters to government departments in an attempt to influence policy,” he said. “He clearly does not want these to get into the public domain.”
Later this month, lawyers for the Cabinet Office, backed by Prince Charles, will go to court to continue to resist Freedom of Information requests of ministers to publish letters written to them by the Prince of Wales.
A spokesman for Buckingham Palace said that the change to the law was necessary because the Freedom of Information Act had failed to protect the constitutional position of the monarch and the heir to the throne. He explained that the sovereign has the right and duty to be consulted, to encourage and warn the government, and by extension, the heir to the throne had the constitutional right and duty to prepare himself for the role of King.
“This constitutional position relies on confidentiality, so that all such correspondence remains confidential,” he said.
But he said that change would also mean that correspondence not covered by the absolute exemption would be made public 10 years earlier than under the current disclosure rules.
The Palace’s position was backed by Professor Vernon Bogdanor, research professor at King’s College London.
He told The Independent:
“The essence of constitutional monarchy is that the Queen and other members of the Royal Family remain politically neutral. The Queen meets the Prime Minister once a week, when both are in London, to discuss government policy.”
“The heir to the throne has the right, and perhaps the duty, to question ministers on policy so as to prepare himself for the throne. Such discussions are only possible if they remain confidential. Otherwise the neutrality of the Queen and of the Prince of Wales could be undermined.”
“When the Queen meets the Prime Minister, no one else is present – not even the Queen’s Private Secretary. For this reason, it is right that the Royal Family should be exempt from FOI.”
The Government claimed that the thrust of the changes announced yesterday would make it “easier for people to use FOI to find and use information about the public bodies they rely on and their taxes pay for.”
The Ministry of Justice intends to increase the number of organisations to which FOI requests can be made, bringing in bodies such as the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Financial Services Ombudsman, and the higher education admissions body UCAS, and also all companies wholly owned by any number of public authorities.
In the public interest? The stories they didn’t want us to know
*In 2004 the Queen asked ministers for a poverty handout to help heat her palaces but was rebuffed because they feared it would be a public relations disaster. Royal aides were told that the £60m worth of energy-saving grants were aimed at families on low incomes and if the money was given to Buckingham Palace instead of housing associations or hospitals it could lead to “adverse publicity” for the Queen and the government.
*A “financial memorandum” formalising the relationship between the sovereign and ministers set out tough terms on how the Queen can spend the £38.2m handed over by Parliament each year to pay for her staff and occupied palaces.
*The Queen requested more public money to pay for the upkeep of her crumbling palaces while allowing minor royals and courtiers to live in rent-free accommodation.
*As early as 2004 Sir Alan Reid, the Keeper of the Privy Purse, had unsuccessfully put the case to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport for a substantial increase in the £15m-a-year grant to maintain royal buildings.
*The Palace planned to go ahead with refurbishing and renting the apartment of Diana, Princess of Wales at Kensington Palace after it had lain empty since her death in 1997.
*A letter exchange revealed a tussle over who has control of £2.5m gained from the sale of Kensington Palace land. Ministers said it belonged to the state, while Buckingham Palace said it belonged to the Queen.
Childs body found outside Sandringham Castle new years day 2013
This news report has gone back and forth a bit but it is now being printed in the mainstream media as fact and the body has been confirmed and identified and this happened back in 2013.A quote from the Herald Sun in Australia –“British police investigating the murder of a young woman, whose body was discovered on the Queen’s Sandringham Estate last week, formally identified the victim as 17-year-old Alisa Dmitrijeva….The Latvian teenager’s body, which may have lain undiscovered for months, was found last Sunday by a dog walker in the tiny village of Anmer, near to the royal residence in the east of England” Here are a few links to the story –
I am posting this for those who follow the stories, rumors, mysteries, etc of “elite” families/organizations and the crimes of murder, especially those of young people. I believe there is more than enough evidence to question what the hell is going on with Royal Families, Politicians, etc and young children being murdered and sexually abused.
For anyone who is not familiar with this line of thinking, I would suggest starting with the American story of the Franklin Scandal or the mind blowing European case of the Dutroux Affair (Mark Dutroux from Belgium).
Interesting to note that the Royal family WAS in the Estate for the holidays when the body was found. To quote the above article again –
“Various members of the royal family spent Christmas and New Year at Sandringham, with the Queen and her husband, Prince Philip, reportedly still in residence at the time of the grim discovery”
I also find it interesting that none of the articles state how she was killed or what state her body was in at the time of its finding.
Jimmy Savile transcript to the police about things that happened in the royals residence’s censored
The papers from a 2009 police quiz were released last week following a seven-month battle by the Daily Star Sunday.
But the 26 pages – which exposed the evil pervert as a bully and a liar – came with 96 redactions (crossings out).
Today we can reveal the documents had been vetted by Buckingham Palace – and that the serial sex attacker’s royal connections were removed.
One reference Savile made about a cousin of the Queen was included in an internal police report released in January.
But on Tuesday, when Surrey Police published the interview transcripts, there was no mention of her.
Other references to royalty were also seemingly erased – and during our fight to obtain the records, police let slip Buckingham Palace’s involvement.
Tony Smith, the force’s information access manager, made the reference as he explained why it was taking so long to release the documents.
He told us that, as well as going to a senior police chief outside the force, the papers had gone “to Buckingham Palace to consider…because they are mentioned in it”.
ROYALTY: Jimmy Savile boasted of a close friendship with Prince Charles [GETTY]
There is no mention of Buckingham Palace or anyone from the royal family in the edited scripts.
And Savile – given an OBE by the Queen in 1972, followed by a knighthood in 1990 – was someone who liked to name-drop his royal connections.
The presenter, who died in 2011 aged 84, two years after Surrey’s bungled probe into sex abuse claims, often boasted of his friendship with Prince Charles. He was also a confidant of Princess Diana and claimed to have helped the Duchess of York as her marriage to Prince Andrew fell apart.
Crucially, in his 1974 autobiography Savile boasted of his friendship with the same cousin of the Queen he mentioned in the 2009 police interview.
Under caution, he told officers the first time he visited a Surrey school where he was said to have abused girls was with Princess Alexandra for a garden party.
If detectives had investigated that reference by looking at his memoirs they would have discovered he was someone who preyed on vulnerable young girls.
He wrote: “Princess Alex is a patron of a hostel for girls in care. At this place I’m a cross between a term-time boyfriend and a fixer of special trips out.” The 76-year-old widow of Sir Angus Ogilvy is the Duke of Kent’s sister and a granddaughter of King George V.”
So all evidence makes me question whether they still use pure blood and cannibalism of children as some kind of satanic Illuminati ritual? If they did it 300 years ago then why would they not be doing it now? Always use your gut feeling when questioning these things.
Do you think there is more to the royals that meets the eye?
A Sheep No More is no longer plugged into the Matrix like the many sheep who are still programmed to believe that they have correct information provided by a varied and “independent media.” In fact the media is owned by 5 or 6 mega-media companies run by corporate advertising executives and Washington.