The Dark History of the Royals
by James Corbett
September 10, 2022
Queen Elizardbeast is dead, long live King Charles?!
Yes, for those lucky souls who are so blissfully detached from the 24/7 newsfeeds that you haven't heard yet, I bring you the news that the longest-reigning monarch in British history, Queen Elizabeth II, is dead.
It's tempting to interpret the double rainbow that appeared over Buckingham Palace when Her Royal Lowness kicked the royal bucket as a sign that her death is indeed a present from God, but—as I am always at pains to observe upon such occasions—the death of an unrepentant sinner is no victory and there is no solace in the removal of but one of the Hydra's many heads. If anything, the reign of King Charles will doubtless be even more ignoble than that of his mother.
Whatever the future may hold for the loyal subjects of His Royal Highness, the Great Reset-shilling, pedophile-befriending, carbon eugenics-pushing King Charles III, given the disheartening (if predictable) reaction of the normies to this latest royal passing, nothing could be timelier than an in-depth exploration of the lowlights of the British royal family. So, even though I am going to drop an 18,000 word, two-hour documentary conclusion in the next 24 hours(!!!), I have taken time out of my schedule to bring you this.
"Enjoy" is the wrong word, but you get the idea.
The Unofficial History of the Royals
There's a story that's told about Queen Elizabeth. According to this story, when asked about her ideology, she is said to have replied: "We are older than capitalism and socialism."
The story is almost certainly apocryphal. But, like many such made-up anecdotes, it does have a ring of truth to it. Indeed, the monarchs are not socialists or capitalists, per se. They are part of a much older tradition that sees the world in a very different light.
In order to understand this royal worldview, we have to go back to the beginning. No, not the beginning of Elizabeth's reign in 1952. Not the beginning of the English branch of the House of "Windsor" to which she belonged. Not even the beginning of the monarchical system in England.
We have to go back to the beginning of monarchy itself. And, to the surprise of absolutely none of my readers, we will discover that the royal ideology was a forerunner to what we know today as eugenics.
As I wrote in 2016:
The ancient Egyptians worshipped the Pharaohs as progeny of the sun god, Ra. The Japanese were told that their Imperial family descended from the sun goddess, Amaterasu, and the sea god, Ryuujin. In Europe, monarchs claimed that God Himself had directly granted them a "Divine Right" to rule over their subjects. In China they called it the "Mandate of Heaven."
For as long as there have been royalty there have been elaborate theological justifications for why monarchs deserve to rule over the people . . . and there has always been royalty.
It's easy to see why the ruling class has tried to foster this idea of godly rule in culture after culture. After all, if the Kings and Queens and Emperors and Pharaohs were not gods, or at least chosen by God, why would anyone listen to them? The difference between a regal king and a tinpot dictator disappears if the king's divinity is denied.
Even today, in this "post-monarchical" era, ancient superstitions about royal families persist. They are still referred to as "blue bloods" as if the very blood that flowed through their veins is different from yours or mine. There is still an elaborate etiquette for meeting the Queen of England, and it is still strictly enforced without exception. Even Obama had to take a lesson before he could meet with Her Majesty Elizabeth II.
The rituals of class distinction are not merely for show. The royals have always considered themselves of superior stock to the commoners, a breed apart from the poor downtrodden masses who toil in squalor beneath them.
Yes, the ancients were taught to believe that their emperors were literal gods. The European dynasties, meanwhile, flourished for centuries under the mass delusion that these families were specifically selected by God to rule over their people. Should it come as any surprise that at some point the royals started to believe their own propaganda?
But, as these proto-eugenicists soon figured out, if their blood was too precious to mingle with the commoners', then that blood must be kept in the family. And so began centuries of royal inbreeding that resulted in the deformities, abnormalities and genetic weirdness that today pervades the royal bloodlines (congenital haemophilia being just one of the most well-known examples). Perhaps the most notable example of intra-family marriage leading to genetic ruin is that of the Spanish Hapsburgs, who, after 500 years of ruling over vast swathes of Europe, managed to inbreed themselves out of existence.
With this understanding of the proto-eugenical philosophy as our background, we can begin to make sense of the millennium-long story of the British monarchy. Alfred the Great yadda yadda yadda Henry beheading wives and starting a church blah blah blah the madness of King George etc. etc. etc. Mrs. John Brown and so on and so forth all the way up to Eddie (VII, for those keeping track at home) and the intrigues that kicked off WWI and birthed the modern world. You know, that story.
To finish making sense of that history, we just need to add one other element to the story: as it turns out, the "British" royal family isn't very British at all. The House of "Windsor" only became the House of "Windsor" in 1917, after all. Before that, it was Saxe Coburg-Gotha. But the British public were a bit fired up about the Huns because of that whole, you know, WWI thing, so "Windsor" it became.
Noting the true origins of the House of "Windsor" is not just some cheap anti-Germanic slur, of course. It points to something even more fundamental. These royals—connected, as we remember, through inbreeding—had much more in common with their European brothers and sisters, cousins and uncles, than they did with the populations they were supposedly ruling over.
With that historical background in place, we can understand, for example, the Windsors' well-documented fondness for the eugenics-promoting Nazis. Where do you think the Nazis got their eugenical beliefs from, after all? Given the royal pedigree of the eugenic worldview, it is perhaps unsurprising to learn that the pseudoscience of eugenics was pioneered by Royal Medal recipient Francis Galton, himself hailing from the celebrated (and thoroughly inbred) Darwin-Galton line, which boasted many esteemed Fellows of the Royal Society.
The overt ties between the Edwardian (VIII, for those keeping track at home) court and Hitler's eugenics-obsessed regime are well-documented. The covert ties are even more intriguing. (Hmmm, that gives me an idea for a documentary . . . .) But it isn't just the home movies showing the future queen giving the Nazi salute or Edward VIII's hobnobbing with Hitler or King Charles' lifelong friendship with unreformed SS officer (and Bilderberg co-founder) Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands or Prince Harry's predilection for Nazi cosplaying. More to the heart of the matter is Prince Philip's infamous desire to be reincarnated as "a particularly deadly virus" in order to contribute to the depopulation of the planet (a remark that has been fact checked by Snopes, so you know that it's true!).
You see, the royals' blue blood pomposity wouldn't be so bad if they simply felt themselves superior to the commoners in a "What, you groom your own stool? My heavens!" kind of way. Sadly, it is not mere snobbery that motivates them, and their great desire is not simply to be kept apart from the commoners. As it turns out, the royal family doesn't just feel superior to their subjects, they actively dislike them and constantly scheme to subjugate them, rob them, impoverish them and mislead them.
Royal False Flags
There's something quaint about Redditors seemingly discovering for the first time that, far from some cute little old lady who waves to the crowds and enjoys tea and crumpets in pretty English gardens, Queen Elizabeth II was actually the heir to a fortune amassed via the violent subjugation of much of the world's populace and the plundering of their wealth and resources. The fact that anyone could be shocked by this historical reality speaks to the naïveté of the masses, who cannot imagine that ruthless psychopaths conspire to amass more wealth by inflicting suffering on the world. (Just wait until these dear, trusting masses learn about the British East India company and the opium wars and the Bengal genocide and the Boer concentration camps and the Amritsar Massacre, etc., etc., etc. . . .)
But for a prime example of the perfidity with which the British monarchy has ruled for centuries (and which gave rise to the "Perfidious Albion" moniker), one need only look at the history of their speciality: false flag operations.
Befitting the governing monarchy of a nation that has been known for its treachery for centuries, the British royals' use of false flag events to gin up public support for the persecution of their enemies likewise goes back centuries. For one prime example of that, we will have to "Remember, remember the fifth of November."
Outside of Britain, the "gunpowder plot" is known only tangentially through cultural artifacts, like the references to the plot contained in V for Vendetta and the subsequent adoption of the Guy Fawkes mask as the symbol of Anonymous. Even in England, most will only know the official version of the story—the one compiled in the so-called "King's Book" written by King James I himself.
According to that official account, on the evening of November 4th, 1605, Guy Fawkes was discovered with 36 barrels of gunpowder and a pile of wood and coal in the undercroft beneath the House of Lords in Parliament, presumably preparing to blow up the building. After his apprehension, Fawkes was brought before the king and, cracking under the interrogation, eventually led the king's agents to the other conspirators in the plot. As it turned out, the whole harebrained scheme to blow up Parliament as it convened on the 5th of November had been hatched by the Jesuits and carried out by a ragtag group of crazed provincial English Catholics. King James then took the sensible precaution of cracking down on Catholics in England, thus ensuring that Catholic treachery would never again threaten the kingdom.
Of course, this story—like so much of the history written by the winners—is total hogwash. Entire books could be written about the plot, what we really know about it, and how the official version was conjured into existence . . . and at least one book has! It's called The Gunpowder Plot and it was written by Hugh Ross Williamson and published in 1952. Those who are interested in the full story are highly encouraged to read Williamson's account. Although the full truth of the plot will likely never be known—buried as it is in a sea of forged documents, tampered evidence and official secrecy—we can say with certainty that the official story was constructed from torture testimony and forged confessions, that the king's spies were likely involved at every level of the plot, that the band of patsies who were ultimately blamed for the whole affair could not possibly have perpetrated it by themselves and, most importantly, that it provided King James with the perfect excuse to crack down on Catholics in the exact manner he had desired.
In other words, Guy Fawkes was likely neither the radical Catholic terrorist mastermind that the court of King James made him out to be nor the crusading anti-authoritarian hero that V for Vendetta and Anonymous pretend him to be, but rather a patsy, a dupe or a mole who was used by the monarchy as a convenient excuse to enact draconian new laws clamping down on the king's opponents. Go figure.
But the British monarchy's false flag hits don't stop there. Viewers of my WWI Conspiracy documentary will already know the central role played by King Edward VII and his German-hating wife in forging the so-called "Triple Entente" between Britain, France and Russia that paved the way for the "Great" War agains the Huns. You will likely also remember WWI conspirator Edward Mandell House's own account of his rather remarkable conversation with Edward VII's successor, King George V, on the morning of May 7, 1915. As House recounts in his Intimate Papers, the two "fell to talking, strangely enough, of the probability of Germany sinking a trans-Atlantic liner." Even more "coincidentally," House relates that George specifically inquired what would happen if the Huns "should sink the Lusitania with American passengers on board." Later that very day, the Lusitania was sunk and public opinion in America turned decidedly against Germany, preparing the way for the eventual entry of the US into the war on the side of the British.
As for the false flag attacks of recent decades, not only has the British crown long played with the fire of Muslim extremism—alternately supporting it or opposing it as geopolitical circumstance necessitates—as I have demonstrated in Part 1 of The Secret History of Al Qaeda—but, as I shall demonstrate in Part 3 of The Secret History of Al Qaeda, the royals presided over a UK government that was an active collaborationist with the neocons in the creation and forwarding of the war of terror agenda. (Stay tuned! . . .)
But I'll bet the new king wishes that an uncomfortable million-pound donation from the bin Laden family were the biggest of his political problems . . .
The Windsors' Pedophile Problem
Oh, if only the new king's greatest fault was to have been born into a eugenics-obsessed family.
If only he were the guiltless benefactor of the cheating, swindling, extortion, theft and plunder of his forebears.
If only he were a regular, run-of-the-mill tyrant, a psychopath who got off on torturing and killing others.
Unfortunately for all of us, it's much worse than that.
The public got a hint of what really goes on behind the royal family's closed castle gates when the Jimmy Savile scandal first came to light a decade ago. If you are able to cast your mind back to the innocent days of 2012, you might recall that, at the time, the existence of high-level pedophile rings (let alone high-level necrophilic pedophile rings) was considered the stuff of tinfoil conspiracy lunacy.
You might also recall that the royal family's relationship to Savile was certainly "problematic" (to use the kids' lingo). But, given what the public then knew, not necessarily more problematic than the involvement of any of the other people who had cozied up to the monstrous pedophile during the course of his career. Sure, the Queen had knighted Savile back in 1990, and any number of photographs could tell you that he was awfully chummy with Charles. Yet perhaps knighthood was to be expected, considering that he had seemingly dedicated much of his life to charity and had made many high-profile friends along the way. In fact, the first hard questions about who knew what when about Savile were asked of the BBC, which certainly did know about the allegations many decades before the disgusting abuser finally died.
But over the years the "who could have known?" routine used by the Windsors' defenders has become increasingly insupportable. First, there was the revelation that Savile was so close to the royal family that he was almost made Prince Harry's godfather. Then came the increasingly damning reports on Savile's close personal friendship with Charles, culminating in the release earlier this year of letters proving that the now-King of England regularly sought Savile's advice on sensitive political matters. And on top of all that there was Savile's own uncomfortable admission that the knighthood had "let him off the hook" for his past sins.
Unsurprisingly, the royal family has never had to respond in any way to public outrage about these reports. No presstitute who wants to keep his job was ever going to dare press Charles on the issue and, since Savile's crimes were only brought to light after his death, the royals could always hide behind the "plausible deniability" that they didn't know what Sir Jimmy was up to. They didn't even need to launch a formal process to strip Savile of his knighthood. For, as it turns out, the honours "automatically expire when a person dies."
But, as I say, the Savile scandal blew up back in the bygone era of a decade ago, when the concept of political pedophile rings was still in the realm of crazed conspiracy podcasts. That all changed, of course, when the Epstein story finally broke into the public consciousness in 2019. And who just happened to be in the middle of that scandal?
That's right, Prince Andrew. The brother of the current king and the eighth in line to the British throne. A man so transparently lecherous that for decades the UK tabloids have mockingly referred to him as "Randy Andy." A man who literally had to invent a scientifically unknown condition of being "unable to sweat" to try to "prove" that the allegations made against him by Jeffrey Epstein victim Virginia Giuffre were false.
I mean, yes, there's the photo of him with his arm around an underage Giuffre (with intelligence handler and convicted sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell hovering in the background), but he doesn't sweat so . . . it's all a lie?
No one buys anything that comes out of the mouth of His Royal Lowness, Prince Andrew, Duke of Dork. After all, you know someone must be a public relations mess when even the royal family is compelled to revoke his titles and royal patronages to keep him out of the spotlight of public scrutiny. As we've seen, the royals didn't even dole out that form of retroactive punishment to Sir Jimmy.
As we all know, the public is no longer as naïve as they were in 2012, and, sadly, the nightmarish reality of protected political pedophile rings is so accepted as documented fact that it is no longer mocked as conspiracy yarn. And, to the surprise of no one who is familiar with the ignoble history of the royal family, the House of Windsor has been implicated in two of the highest profile pedophile scandals in recent memory.
So here's a rhetorical question for you: who in the controlled mainstream media do you think will ever dare bring up this topic up again now that Prince Charles is officially King Charles?
Writing this article feels like I'm telling a child, all in one sitting, that Santa Claus isn't real, the Easter Bunny is a hoax and the tooth fairy is just your mom.
But, in reality, it's worse than that. It's telling fully-grown adults that Santa Claus isn't real, the Easter Bunny is a hoax and the tooth fairy is just their mom and being ridiculed as a fringe loony for doing so.
This isn't my first attempt at opening eyes on this subject, either. Back in 2015, I made note of the absolute madness that took hold of the global media surrounding the announcement of the birth of Princess Charlotte, writing:
So who is going so crazy for this royal baby? Surely no one who is familiar with the real history of the reign of the "Windsors," a reign marked by the tens of millions of lives lost in the First and Second World Wars (in which the royal family had a great degree of culpability), close collaboration with the banksters that have brought us to the edge of the next great depression, the formation of the Anglo-American "special relationship" in common cause with like-minded eugenicists in America like Teddy Roosevelt, the cultivation and protection of pedophiles (of whom Jimmy Savile was just the most noticeable tip of a very large iceberg), the slaying of Diana, and any number of other atrocities that should make this family one of the most reviled in the "commonwealth" they claim to rule over. And yet the media still lauds their every action, sings their praises as a venerable institution at the core of British society, dutifully acts as the royal PR mouthpiece in reporting on their charity work, and marginalizes any talk of doing away with the royal family altogether as "republican rabble-rousing."
Plus ça change . . .
And now once again we have one of these royal events come along to remind us just how many people are still firmly ensconced in normieland. After all the royals have put us through, it's flabbergasting that they're still held in such high regard. It's even more disheartening that there are still vast swathes of people who believe that this family has been chosen by God Himself to rule over an entire nation (or even a "commonwealth").
Here's to the day when this type of article is unnecessary and the death of a ninety-six-year-old in her home is of no political significance whatsoever. One can always dream . . .
The Corbett Report is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.