There is an air of unreality to Prince Charles’ spin-squad attempting this week to prove that the future British Head of State’s comparison of Putin to Hitler, while surrounded by journalists on a royal tour, was said in a ‘private conversation’.

It is not just that his views show how out of touch he and his PR
team are with the nation and the real world, but Charles’
flippant remarks draw unwelcome attention to his own and his
family’s close connections to Nazis, and related war-mongering.

His father Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh was educated for a
time in Nazi Germany and his four sisters married black-uniformed
SS officers (three of them, Sophie, Cecile and Margarita, joining
the Nazi party). Philip admitted to then having 'inhibitions
about the Jews' to an American academic and feeling
'jealousy of their success.' Charles’ great uncle, the
abdicated ex-King Edward VIII, was such a swastika-waver that MI6
had to banish him to Bermuda for the duration of World War Two,
thwarting his and his Nazi wife Mrs Simpson’s attempts to join
Hitler by crossing into occupied Europe.

Charles himself has come quite close to publicly endorsing
Hitler’s slippery chief Architect and Armaments Minister Albert
Speer by hiring Speer’s greatest devotee, Léon Krier, as his own
chief architect for his Duchy of Cornwall’s extensive building
projects. Writer and broadcaster Jonathan Meades in his 1994
documentary, ‘Jerry Building’ nails Krier as the
‘Speer-carrier’ and ‘Keeper of the Toxic
Flame’, pointing out that every one of Speer’s creations,
which include the Nuremberg rally stadium, is inseparable from
the inhuman experimentation and forced concentration camp labor
used to construct them.

Charles’ great grandfather George V was one of the three
‘great’ architects of World War One, the so-called
‘Cousins’ War’, four years of mindless slaughter that
began exactly a century ago. With two more Saxe-Coburg Gotha
cousins, George’s hapless subjects slugged it out in trench
warfare with Germany’s Wilhelm II and Russia’s Nicholas II's
unfortunates leaving, by 1918, a total of some ten million dead
for no discernible purpose.

When in 1917 ill-mannered soldiers began pointing out that German
Gotha bombers from another branch of the King’s family business
were killing them, George V blithely announced that his surname
was changing from ‘Saxe-Coburg Gotha’ to the more
English-sounding ‘Windsor’.

Even masterpieces like Richard Attenborough’s 1969 feature film
'Oh! What A Lovely War', the BBC’s controversial 1986
drama ‘The Monocled Mutineer’ and the poetry of Geoffrey
Studdert-Kennedy, Worcester army padre known affectionately as
'Woodbine Willie', do not quite reflect the futility of
the war and the bitterness it stirred up amongst ordinary people.

Today, despite standing against the Nazis in World War Two, Her
Majesty’s government and armed forces, who all swear allegiance
to the Queen, are backing most of the dictators and despots
around the world. From President Mahinda Rajapaksa in Sri Lanka
with the blood of 40,000 innocent Tamil civilians on his hands,
to King Abdullah's brutal Saudi regime which still practices
public beheadings. Charles’ tongue always speaks for the world
leaders Amnesty International tells us are the bad guys, but he
is looking to make money with them, whether through real estate
or arms.

Are we witnessing the death throes of the British monarchy?

It started thirty six years after the bloodthirsty Knights
Templar warrior-bankers were disgraced and dissolved, a new order
of 26 ‘knights’ were initiated in 1348 that have
dominated the British crown ever since. The Order of the Garter
consists of two conjoined cells, each of thirteen knights that
advise and ‘protect’ the monarch and heir apparent.

Because of their obsessive secrecy and lack of transparency over
the centuries those appointed to these knights have become the
very antithesis of Medieval chivalry, a lethal mixture of
yes-men, and devious chancers who would sell their own mother to
get a seat, and a cut of the rent, at the top table.

Nothing could illustrate more clearly the British monarchy’s
distain for their poor subjects than Henry VIII’s asset seizure
and eviction in the 1530s of around ten thousand monks from
Britain’s monasteries. Since the days of Alfred the Great these
holy orders had been providing a backbone of education and
healthcare to the nation, but to Henry they represented a kind of
Vatican fifth column, daring to question the wisdom of his break
from Rome to form his independent Church of England.

In 1638, with special pleadings from Archbishop Laud, Charles I
addressed the privatization of land, enclosure, by fining rich
merchants and parliamentarians who had evicted villagers from
collectively managed open fields. Only ‘freemen’ owning
land worth over 40 shillings a year could vote so the merchants
had effectively been voting themselves growing land the poor
needed to feed themselves.

Charles I, perhaps bravely, perhaps foolishly, tried to buck the
trend of the creeping privatization of land, but the merchants
secretly organised against him, launched the English Civil War
and he lost his head in 1649. The merchant classes were now
firmly in power and ready to bring their new-fangled capitalism
to the world.

The meddling ‘black spider’ prince

Whether Charles’ meddling in politics today is for good or ill in
Britain we can only guess because he spends hundreds of thousands
of pounds, even more than he spends on PR, on confidentiality
lawyers to stop the British public finding out. Not only has he
been shown to be secretly vetoing legislation passed by
parliament which he doesn’t like but sending regular hand-written
‘black spider’ directives to Secretaries of State.

Charles’ lawyers have fought a four year battle against Guardian
journalist Rob Evans to keep these communications secret, arguing
that as a private citizen he is not covered by the Freedom of
Information Act. So far he has succeeded in keeping these
directives, which professor of constitutional law at Manchester
University Rodney Brazier modestly described as a
'constitutional innovation', secret.

How the nation is to deal with Charles' secret stretching of what
is expressly a non-political office, in a way that his mother
Queen Elizabeth rarely appears to have done, hangs in the air
like a constitutional bad smell. If his mother’s rare missive to
the Labour Home Secretary demanding the arrest of radical Muslim
cleric Abu-Hamza are anything to go by Charles’ letters would be
revealing indeed.

Don’t mention Diana

Visitors to Charles’ country estate, Highgrove House in
Gloucestershire, are disappointed to find all traces of Princess
Diana are notable by their absence, even from the gift shop where
she would no doubt turn a handsome profit. Despite William and
Harry doing much of their growing up here their mother’s name,
image and memory has been entirely expunged.

This is a pity since Diana and the boys spent many of their
happiest times in and around the market town of Tetbury, nestling
as it does in the heart of the Cotswolds countryside. On Sunday
mornings in the late 1980s and early 1990s Diana could be spotted
with young Princes William and Harry slipping into the back rows
of St Mary the Virgin and St Mary Magdalen Church after the
service had begun to avoid attention, looking for all the world
like just any other young mum with her boys. After church they'd
cycle back down country lanes back to Highgrove, a couple of
miles south of the town.

Locals say the threesome made a sport of evading royal protection
squad police officers who were supposed to be following them at
all times but whom the princess saw as ‘claustrophobic’,
putting up a barrier between them and passers-by. Diana insisted
on bringing the boys up ‘to see themselves as the same as
everyone else.’ Teaching them to talk in a down-to-earth,
relaxed way with the public.

But after the adultery with Camilla and subsequent divorce, Diana
was now a ‘problem' for Charles and the Queen. According to
Australian investigative journalist John Morgan they set up what
they called the ‘Way Ahead Group’ (WAG) to manage the
three fold ‘Diana problem’.

Firstly her anti-land mines campaign was threatening arms company
profits both in France and Britain, then she was using the
British press to successfully assert herself as a national figure
and finally WAG meetings became more urgent because Diana was
about to announce her engagement to Dodi Al Fayed, meaning
William and Harry might be about to get a Muslim stepfather.

In Morgan’s 2012 book 'Paris-London Connection, The
Assassination of Princess Diana', John Morgan says evidence
revealed in the two police enquiries and inquest suggested the
Queen and Prince Charles tipped the wink to Britain’s Foreign
Intelligence Service MI6, that if Diana were to have an
‘accident’ nobody at the palace would mind.

Keith Allen's 2011 documentary 'Unlawful Killing' which
examines the decade late Diana inquest, proves beyond doubt that
her death was no accident. But the film has not been shown on TV
and been suppressed online and in the cinemas by the
deep-pocketed royal lawyers. It may never now be shown in
Britain.

Charles is descended from the other Vlad, from Transylvania

Charles is of course responsible for none of his royal
predecessors' turbulent history but like anyone else he can and
should choose his own way. The path of secrecy and the PR wall he
has attempted to construct around himself simply will not wash in
today’s connected world, serving only to alienate him from most
of his 65 million subjects.

However the Putin Nazi lie has gained unhappy momentum because
Britain's three party leaders have shown contempt both for the
constitution and public by backing the prince against the facts
and the national interest.

What they have shown by weighing in to support Charles' slur
against Russia is that Britain's ruling elite, including the arms
manufacturers, can be dictators deciding in private meetings
amongst themselves what foreign policy to pursue. Even in
election week our so-called top politicians don't have the
backbone to stand up to the establishment, however brazen the
lies.

Outside his charmed circle, Charles’ ungracious remarks will
persuade very few here in Britain. They demonstrate both a
perverse underplaying of the 25 million Soviet dead of World War
Two and a further move toward nuclear war today in Europe. The
party leaders have also refused to recognize Charles' own
government and armed forces’ backing for the post-coup Ukrainian
government, key ‘Right Sector’ elements of which proudly
sport pictures of Nazis such as war criminal Stepan Bandera on
their Kiev walls.

Charles does not understand, as his mother appears to have done,
that he cannot have it both ways as Head of State and as a
politician. Charles’ devil-may-care remarks have invited disdain
for him at home and for Britain abroad. Ironically, for the man
who is proud of his Transylvanian ‘Dracula’ ancestry,
being descended from the fifteenth century despot Vlad the
Impaler, they represent one more nail in the coffin of the
British monarchy.