vrijdag 1 september 2017

Vervolg Aan de Edelhoogachtbare Voorzitters Staatsraden van de Raad van State deel 118 Herinvoer oude munteenheden vanwege frauderen uitslagen verkiezingen en ontmaskering vrijmetselarij, Scientology, Illuminatie en Nieuwe wereldorde.

Arun Shrivastava's insight:
I am probing the racket in preventing cancer treatment using local herbs and vegetable matters like Flaraxin.  Flaraxin is a natural product developed in Kiev, Ukraine. They have been denied research funds. [So the Globalists in Britain and America and Germany have yet another reason to destroy Ukraine!!!]
The denialist say this about local health options, AKA alternative medicine:httphttp://forum.breastcancercare.org.uk/t5/Living-with-breast-cancer/Flaraxin/td-p/667895
THE GREAT DECEPTION: While the WHO claims that cancer rate will 'flourish' and blames smokers, obese folks, and drunkards, it has NEVER TO MY KNOWLEDGE ascribed the rise of cancers to poisoned foods. This UN agency should locked up wholesale behind the bars for minimum 100 years and fed GMOs, fluoridated water and vaccinated everyday.
 
Here're some of their findings:
 
FLARAXIN IS EFFECTIVE WITH 90 % OF ONCOLOGIC DISEASES Brain cancer, melanoblastoma, breast, lung cancer, mammary gland cancer, ovaries cancer, neck of womb cancer, womb cancer, prostate gland cancer, sigmoid and rectum cancer, stomach cancer, bladder cancer which are equivalent to 90% of a total quantity of oncologic diseases. FLARAXIN is most effective in the cases of the small tumor defeats, when vital organs (liver, kidneys) are not defeated. In these cases the complete response (CR or reduction) of tumor can be reached. Flaraxin application efficiency in different cases with cancer. 
FLARAXIN is a remedy of vegetable origin a non-toxic anti-tumoral phytopreparation, having neither allergenic nor local irritative activity, interferonogene, stimulatingtumoral necrosis factor, destroys tumoral  tissue. Immunomodulator and antioxidant. Prevents metastatic spreading and relapse.FLARAXIN is most effective in the cases of the small tumor defeats, when vital organs (liver, kidneys) are not defeated. In these cases the complete response (CR or reduction) of tumor can be reached.Flaraxin is worked out in Scientific & Treatment Center for Cancer
Curing "PHOENIX" (License of the Ukrainian Ministry of Health Seria АБ No.299302) allow to realize effective treatment of the patients, not to be treated by traditional methods 
 
INFORMATION ABOUT STCCC PHOENIXSTCCC Phoenix founded in 1996 to coordinate research work on a comprehensive study of a new anticancer drugs of plant origin -FLARAXIN (historical background), which was developed in the Kiev Research Institute of Pharmacology and Toxicology by the surgical oncologists Kulik Ivan Anisimovich. 
STCCC Phoenix developed and clinically tested a number of biologically active preparations of plant origin. For the first time, has been used a unique technology of plant concentrates, allowing several times to increase the biological activity of number natural substances. 
As a result of comprehensive research has developed a number of medical treatments for cancer patients by the FLARAXIN together with a number of biologically active preparations. 
The practice of their application showed the effectiveness of their impact on a number of infectious, virus, somatic and cancer diseases. 
For early detection of cancer, as well as possible recurrence introduced the latest techniques of early detection. The method of professor Shahbazov predicts the impact of a drug to identify pathology. 
Now medications of STCCC "Phoenix" are used, as in oncology clinics, and medical centers of Ukraine and Russia. 
PRIORITIES OF THE CENTEROptimization of the existing methods of treatment for cancer patients combining the use of surgery, chemotherapy and radiotherapy and FLARAXIN in various combinations. 
Application of our medications for the profilactics and prevention of recidivation, after medical investigation and ascertainment of diathesis to tumors. 
The prevention and elimination of possible recurrence of the disease. 
Consultation of the patients about non-toxic treatment of tumors. 
Provide scientific and technical assistance to a wide range of health professionals on the practical application of biologically active drugs in the treatment of infectious parasitic disease, somatic and cancerpathology. 
The research, development and clinical testing of new drugs The research, development and clinical testing of new drugs of vegetable origin derived from the vacuum-condensing and drying technology.
STCCC PHOENIX www.flaraxin.com ore 
SCIENTIFIC & TREATMENT CENTER FOR CANCER CURING PHOENIX 

OLAF: waarom veel Europese fraudeonderzoeken op niets uitdraaien

Michel VandersmissenMichel VandersmissenRedacteur van Knack
14/03/17 om 16:08 - Bijgewerkt op 16/03/17 om 14:40 - Uit Knack van 15/03/17
Bron: Knack
Het Europees agentschap voor fraudebestrijding OLAF heeft geen al te beste reputatie. Brussel wil de dienst daarom nu omvormen tot een heus Europees Openbaar Ministerie. Een goede zaak, vindt Europarlementslid Bart Staes. Anderen hebben twijfels.
Onlangs raakte bekend dat OLAF, het agentschap voor fraudebestrijding van de Europese Unie, een crimineel netwerk heeft blootgelegd dat illegaal goedkope kleding en schoenen uit China invoerde in het Verenigd Koninkrijk. OLAF eist twee miljard euro niet betaalde rechten terug van de Britse regering. 
...

Verder lezen?

Erdoganmedia kregen tonnen aan Nederlandse subsidie

  •  
  •  
  •  
Turks-Nederlandse media op de hand van de Turkse regering, waarvan er één zaterdag opriep tot protesten tegen Nederland, zijn jarenlang overeind gehouden met geld van het ministerie van OCW.

DOOR: RASIT ELIBOL  17 MAART 2017, 11:10
Pro-Erdoganmedia hebben tonnen subsidie ontvangen van de Nederlandse overheid. Toch ging het grootste deel failliet omdat ze volgens het Stimuleringsfonds voor de Journalistiek 'weinig aandacht besteedden aan de zakelijke kant van hun onderneming'. 

De subsidies konden niet worden teruggevorderd omdat de bedrijven achter de Turkse nieuwssites failliet gingen, blijkt uit onderzoek van Het Parool. 

Veel van de Turks-Nederlandse media hebben na het faillissement een doorstart gemaakt met dezelfde mensen aan het roer, veelal vooraanstaande leden van de Nederlandse tak van president Erdogans AK-partij en de nationalistische stichting Milli Görüs.

Forse schuld
Sonhaber, dat 'laatste nieuws' betekent, deed zaterdag op de website en op sociale media oproepen om te komen demonstreren voor het Turkse consulaat in Rotterdam.

115.000

Sonhaber, dat opriep te protesteren, kreeg in 2009 115.000 euro ­subsidie van het Stimuleringsfonds
Volgens de officiële aankondigingen van de subsidies van het Stimuleringsfonds voor de Journalistiek, dat van het ministerie van Onderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschap geld krijgt maar zelfstandig beslist over het toekennen van de gelden, heeft Sonhaber in 2009 115.000 euro gekregen.

Ondanks de toelage werd een forse schuld opgebouwd, met een faillissement tot gevolg. Vanwege een gebrek aan baten werd het faillissement opgeheven en kon het geld niet meer worden teruggevorderd. De site maakte vervolgens een doorstart.

Strengere selectie
Stichting Anadolu, het bedrijf achter het Turks-Nederlandse medium (website en blad) Dogus, kreeg in eerste instantie 218.000 euro toegewezen. Daar is 156.000 euro van uitbetaald door het fonds. De einddatum van de subsidie was 28 januari 2013. Het aan de Gülenbeweging gelieerde Zaman kreeg ook geld: ruim 160.000 euro in 2007.
Ahmet Akgündüz raakte meermaals in opspraak wegens vijandige taal jegens onder anderen homo's, Koerden en Armeniërs
Directeur René van Zanten van het Stimuleringsfonds voor de Journalistiek erkent dat de projecten niet goed zijn gelopen. Volgens hem was het de bedoeling dat meer migranten over Nederland zouden gaan lezen, maar is die speciale regeling al in 2010 gestopt. Hij wijst er verder op dat er toen 'nog geen sprake was van polarisatie zoals we die nu in Turkije (en zelfs onder Turkse Nederlanders) ervaren'.

Ook andere Turks-Nederlandse media die subsidies kregen, zijn op de fles gegaan. Het ging daarbij om de bladen Ekin (bijna 184.000 euro totaal in 2005 en 2010) en Kuzey Yildizi (178.000 euro in 2007). Van Zanten benadrukt dat het fonds projecten tegenwoordig scherper in de gaten houdt. De selectie is strenger en er is continu begeleiding.

Pleidooi voor doodstraf
Op de Turkstalige website van Sonhaber zijn afgelopen zomer al lijsten gepubliceerd met bedrijven, scholen en verenigingen die gelieerd zouden zijn aan de Gülenbeweging, die verantwoordelijk zou zijn voor de mislukte coup­poging op 15 juli in Turkije. 

Een opvallende naam op Sonhaber.eu is Ahmet Akgündüz, rector van de Islamitische Universiteit Rotterdam. Hij raakte meermaals in opspraak wegens vijandige taal jegens onder anderen homo's, Koerden en Armeniërs. Ook riep hij zijn achterban op om op Erdogan te stemmen. Verhalen van zijn hand worden op Sonhaber gepubliceerd.
Ik stem op Erdogan, maar de site is onafhankelijk. We berichten ook over andere Turkse politici
Ömer Asiran
Hoofdredacteur van Dogus was tot voor kort Mehmet Erdogan (geen familie). Hij is ook voorzitter van Milli Görüs Zuid-Nederland, een grote conservatieve nationalistische islamorganisatie die op goede voet staat met Erdogan. Hij was niet bereikbaar voor commentaar.

Onderzoek
De man achter Sonhaber is Ömer Asiran, die lange tijd voorzitter was van de stichting. Hij is actief lid van de AK-partij. Op sociale media laat hij bijvoorbeeld weten te hopen dat de doodstraf wordt ingevoerd in Turkije. 

Asiran: "Het faillissement kwam destijds juist omdat een deel van de subsidie niet is uitgekeerd, anders hadden we nu nog een gezonde onderneming gehad. Er is een onderzoeks­bureau ingeschakeld dat concludeerde dat wij geen goede journalistiek bedreven. Daar ben ik het nog steeds niet mee eens. De stichting die destijds de subsidie ontving, heeft niks meer met de site te maken."

Over de oproep op de website om te gaan demonstreren bij het Turkse consulaat, zegt hij: "We zijn een medium en dat was nieuws. Ik stem op Erdogan, maar de site is onafhankelijk. We berichten ook over andere Turkse politici."

Het geheime plan voor de dagen na de dood van de Britse Koningin
In the plans that exist for the death of the Queen – and there are many versions, held by Buckingham Palace, the government and the BBC – most envisage that she will die after a short illness. Her family and doctors will be there. When the Queen Mother passed away on the afternoon of Easter Saturday, in 2002, at the Royal Lodge in Windsor, she had time to telephone friends to say goodbye, and to give away some of her horses. In these last hours, the Queen’s senior doctor, a gastroenterologist named Professor Huw Thomas, will be in charge. He will look after his patient, control access to her room and consider what information should be made public. The bond between sovereign and subjects is a strange and mostly unknowable thing. A nation’s life becomes a person’s, and then the string must break.
There will be bulletins from the palace – not many, but enough. “The Queen is suffering from great physical prostration, accompanied by symptoms which cause much anxiety,” announced Sir James Reid, Queen Victoria’s physician, two days before her death in 1901. “The King’s life is moving peacefully towards its close,” was the final notice issued by George V’s doctor, Lord Dawson, at 9.30pm on the night of 20 January 1936. Not long afterwards, Dawson injected the king with 750mg of morphine and a gram of cocaine – enough to kill him twice over – in order to ease the monarch’s suffering, and to have him expire in time for the printing presses of the Times, which rolled at midnight.
Her eyes will be closed and Charles will be king. His siblings will kiss his hands. The first official to deal with the news will be Sir Christopher Geidt, the Queen’s private secretary, a former diplomat who was given a second knighthood in 2014, in part for planning her succession.
Geidt will contact the prime minister. The last time a British monarch died, 65 years ago, the demise of George VI was conveyed in a code word, “Hyde Park Corner”, to Buckingham Palace, to prevent switchboard operators from finding out. For Elizabeth II, the plan for what happens next is known as “London Bridge.” The prime minister will be woken, if she is not already awake, and civil servants will say “London Bridge is down” on secure lines. From the Foreign Office’s Global Response Centre, at an undisclosed location in the capital, the news will go out to the 15 governments outside the UK where the Queen is also the head of state, and the 36 other nations of the Commonwealth for whom she has served as a symbolic figurehead – a face familiar in dreams and the untidy drawings of a billion schoolchildren – since the dawn of the atomic age.
For a time, she will be gone without our knowing it. The information will travel like the compressional wave ahead of an earthquake, detectable only by special equipment. Governors general, ambassadors and prime ministers will learn first. Cupboards will be opened in search of black armbands, three-and-a-quarter inches wide, to be worn on the left arm.
The rest of us will find out more quickly than before. On 6 February 1952, George VI was found by his valet at Sandringham at 7.30am. The BBC did not broadcast the news until 11.15am, almost four hours later. When Princess Diana died at 4am local time at the Pitié-Salpêtrière hospital in Paris on 31 August 1997, journalists accompanying the former foreign secretary, Robin Cook, on a visit to the Philippines knew within 15 minutes. For many years the BBC was told about royal deaths first, but its monopoly on broadcasting to the empire has gone now. When the Queen dies, the announcement will go out as a newsflash to the Press Association and the rest of the world’s media simultaneously. At the same instant, a footman in mourning clothes will emerge from a door at Buckingham Palace, cross the dull pink gravel and pin a black-edged notice to the gates. While he does this, the palace website will be transformed into a sombre, single page, showing the same text on a dark background.
Screens will glow. There will be tweets. At the BBC, the “radio alert transmission system” (Rats), will be activated – a cold war-era alarm designed to withstand an attack on the nation’s infrastructure. Rats, which is also sometimes referred to as “royal about to snuff it”, is a near mythical part of the intricate architecture of ritual and rehearsals for the death of major royal personalities that the BBC has maintained since the 1930s. Most staff have only ever seen it work in tests; many have never seen it work at all. “Whenever there is a strange noise in the newsroom, someone always asks, ‘Is that the Rats?’ Because we don’t know what it sounds like,” one regional reporter told me.
All news organisations will scramble to get films on air and obituaries online. At the Guardian, the deputy editor has a list of prepared stories pinned to his wall. The Times is said to have 11 days of coverage ready to go. At Sky News and ITN, which for years rehearsed the death of the Queen substituting the name “Mrs Robinson”, calls will go out to royal experts who have already signed contracts to speak exclusively on those channels. “I am going to be sitting outside the doors of the Abbey on a hugely enlarged trestle table commentating to 300 million Americans about this,” one told me.
For people stuck in traffic, or with Heart FM on in the background, there will only be the subtlest of indications, at first, that something is going on. Britain’s commercial radio stations have a network of blue “obit lights”, which is tested once a week and supposed to light up in the event of a national catastrophe. When the news breaks, these lights will start flashing, to alert DJs to switch to the news in the next few minutes and to play inoffensive music in the meantime. Every station, down to hospital radio, has prepared music lists made up of “Mood 2” (sad) or “Mood 1” (saddest) songs to reach for in times of sudden mourning. “If you ever hear Haunted Dancehall (Nursery Remix) by Sabres of Paradise on daytime Radio 1, turn the TV on,” wrote Chris Price, a BBC radio producer, for the Huffington Post in 2011. “Something terrible has just happened.”
Having plans in place for the death of leading royals is a practice that makes some journalists uncomfortable. “There is one story which is deemed to be so much more important than others,” one former Today programme producer complained to me. For 30 years, BBC news teams were hauled to work on quiet Sunday mornings to perform mock storylines about the Queen Mother choking on a fishbone. There was once a scenario about Princess Diana dying in a car crash on the M4.
These well-laid plans have not always helped. In 2002, when the Queen Mother died, the obit lights didn’t come on because someone failed to push the button down properly. On the BBC, Peter Sissons, the veteran anchor, was criticised for wearing a maroon tie. Sissons was the victim of a BBC policy change, issued after the September 11 attacks, to moderate its coverage and reduce the number of “category one” royals eligible for the full obituary procedure. The last words in Sissons’s ear before going on air were: “Don’t go overboard. She’s a very old woman who had to go some time.”
But there will be no extemporising with the Queen. The newsreaders will wear black suits and black ties. Category one was made for her. Programmes will stop. Networks will merge. BBC 1, 2 and 4 will be interrupted and revert silently to their respective idents – an exercise class in a village hall, a swan waiting on a pond – before coming together for the news. Listeners to Radio 4 and Radio 5 live will hear a specific formulation of words, “This is the BBC from London,” which, intentionally or not, will summon a spirit of national emergency.
The main reason for rehearsals is to have words that are roughly approximate to the moment. “It is with the greatest sorrow that we make the following announcement,” said John Snagge, the BBC presenter who informed the world of the death of George VI. (The news was repeated seven times, every 15 minutes, and then the BBC went silent for five hours). According to one former head of BBC news, a very similar set of words will be used for the Queen. The rehearsals for her are different to the other members of the family, he explained. People become upset, and contemplate the unthinkable oddness of her absence. “She is the only monarch that most of us have ever known,” he said. The royal standard will appear on the screen. The national anthem will play. You will remember where you were.

When people think of a contemporary royal death in Britain, they think, inescapably, of Diana. The passing of the Queen will be monumental by comparison. It may not be as nakedly emotional, but its reach will be wider, and its implications more dramatic. “It will be quite fundamental,” as one former courtier told me.
Part of the effect will come from the overwhelming weight of things happening. The routine for modern royal funerals is more or less familiar (Diana’s was based on “Tay Bridge”, the plan for the Queen Mother’s). But the death of a British monarch, and the accession of a new head of state, is a ritual that is passing out of living memory: three of the Queen’s last four prime ministers were born after she came to the throne. When she dies, both houses of parliament will be recalled, people will go home from work early, and aircraft pilots will announce the news to their passengers. In the nine days that follow (in London Bridge planning documents, these are known as “D-day”, “D+1” and so on) there will be ritual proclamations, a four-nation tour by the new king, bowdlerised television programming, and a diplomatic assembling in London not seen since the death of Winston Churchill in 1965.
More overwhelming than any of this, though, there will be an almighty psychological reckoning for the kingdom that she leaves behind. The Queen is Britain’s last living link with our former greatness – the nation’s id, its problematic self-regard – which is still defined by our victory in the second world war. One leading historian, who like most people I interviewed for this article declined to be named, stressed that the farewell for this country’s longest-serving monarch will be magnificent. “Oh, she will get everything,” he said. “We were all told that the funeral of Churchill was the requiem for Britain as a great power. But actually it will really be over when she goes.”
There will be an almighty psychological reckoning for the kingdom that she leaves behind
Unlike the US presidency, say, monarchies allow huge passages of time – a century, in some cases – to become entwined with an individual. The second Elizabethan age is likely to be remembered as a reign of uninterrupted national decline, and even, if she lives long enough and Scotland departs the union, as one of disintegration. Life and politics at the end of her rule will be unrecognisable from their grandeur and innocence at its beginning. “We don’t blame her for it,” Philip Ziegler, the historian and royal biographer, told me. “We have declined with her, so to speak.”
The obituary films will remind us what a different country she inherited. One piece of footage will be played again and again: from her 21st birthday, in 1947,when Princess Elizabeth was on holiday with her parents in Cape Town. She was 6,000 miles from home and comfortably within the pale of the British Empire. The princess sits at a table with a microphone. The shadow of a tree plays on her shoulder. The camera adjusts three or four times as she talks, and on each occasion, she twitches momentarily, betraying tiny flashes of aristocratic irritation. “I declare before you all that my whole life, whether it be long or short, shall be devoted to your service, and the service of our great imperial family to which we all belong,” she says, enunciating vowels and a conception of the world that have both vanished.
It is not unusual for a country to succumb to a state of denial as a long chapter in its history is about to end. When it became public that Queen Victoria was dying, at the age of 82, a widow for half her life, “astonished grief … swept the country”, wrote her biographer, Lytton Strachey. In the minds of her subjects, the queen’s mortality had become unimaginable; and with her demise, everything was suddenly at risk, placed in the hands of an elderly and untrusted heir, Edward VII. “The wild waters are upon us now,” wrote the American Henry James, who had moved to London 30 years before.
The parallels with the unease that we will feel at the death of Elizabeth II are obvious, but without the consolation of Britain’s status in 1901 as the world’s most successful country. “We have to have narratives for royal events,” the historian told me. “In the Victorian reign, everything got better and better, and bigger and bigger. We certainly can’t tell that story today.”
The result is an enormous objection to even thinking about – let alone talking or writing about – what will happen when the Queen dies. We avoid the subject as we avoid it in our own families. It seems like good manners, but it is also fear. The reporting for this article involved dozens of interviews with broadcasters, government officials, and departed palace staff, several of whom have worked on London Bridge directly. Almost all insisted on complete secrecy. “This meeting never happened,” I was told after one conversation in a gentleman’s club on Pall Mall. Buckingham Palace, meanwhile, has a policy of not commenting on funeral arrangements for members of the royal family.
And yet this taboo, like much to do with the monarchy, is not entirely rational, and masks a parallel reality. The next great rupture in Britain’s national life has, in fact, been planned to the minute. It involves matters of major public importance, will be paid for by us, and is definitely going to happen. According to the Office of National Statistics, a British woman who reaches the age of 91 – as the Queen will in April – has an average life expectancy of four years and three months. The Queen is approaching the end of her reign at a time of maximum disquiet about Britain’s place in the world, at a moment when internal political tensions are close to breaking her kingdom apart. Her death will also release its own destabilising forces: in the accession of Queen Camilla; in the optics of a new king who is already an old man; and in the future of the Commonwealth, an invention largely of her making. (The Queen’s title of “Head of the Commonwealth” is not hereditary.) Australia’s prime minister and leader of the opposition both want the country to become a republic.
Coping with the way these events fall is the next great challenge of the House of Windsor, the last European royal family to practise coronations and to persist – with the complicity of a willing public – in the magic of the whole enterprise. That is why the planning for the Queen’s death and its ceremonial aftermath is so extensive. Succession is part of the job. It is an opportunity for order to be affirmed. Queen Victoria had written down the contents of her coffin by 1875. The Queen Mother’s funeral was rehearsed for 22 years. Louis Mountbatten, the last Viceroy of India, prepared a winter and a summer menu for his funeral lunch. London Bridge is the Queen’s exit plan. “It’s history,” as one of her courtiers said. It will be 10 days of sorrow and spectacle in which, rather like the dazzling mirror of the monarchy itself, we will revel in who we were and avoid the question of what we have become.

The idea is for nothing to be unforeseen. If the Queen dies abroad, a BAe 146 jet from the RAF’s No 32 squadron, known as the Royal Flight, will take off from Northolt, at the western edge of London, with a coffin on board. The royal undertakers, Leverton & Sons, keep what they call a “first call coffin” ready in case of royal emergencies. Both George V and George VI were buried in oak grown on the Sandringham estate in Norfolk. If the Queen dies there, her body will come to London by car after a day or two.
The most elaborate plans are for what happens if she passes away at Balmoral, where she spends three months of the year. This will trigger an initial wave of Scottish ritual. First, the Queen’s body will lie at rest in her smallest palace, at Holyroodhouse, in Edinburgh, where she is traditionally guarded by the Royal Company of Archers, who wear eagle feathers in their bonnets. Then the coffin will be carried up the Royal Mile to St Giles’s cathedral, for a service of reception, before being put on board the Royal Train at Waverley station for a sad progress down the east coast mainline. Crowds are expected at level crossings and on station platforms the length of the country – from Musselburgh and Thirsk in the north, to Peterborough and Hatfield in the south – to throw flowers on the passing train. (Another locomotive will follow behind, to clear debris from the tracks.) “It’s actually very complicated,” one transport official told me.
The funeral procession of the late King George VI in 1952.
  The funeral procession of the late King George VI in 1952. Photograph: Popperfoto
In every scenario, the Queen’s body returns to the throne room in Buckingham Palace, which overlooks the north-west corner of the Quadrangle, its interior courtyard. There will be an altar, the pall, the royal standard, and four Grenadier Guards, their bearskin hats inclined, their rifles pointing to the floor, standing watch. In the corridors, staff employed by the Queen for more than 50 years will pass, following procedures they know by heart. “Your professionalism takes over because there is a job to be done,” said one veteran of royal funerals. There will be no time for sadness, or to worry about what happens next. Charles will bring in many of his own staff when he accedes. “Bear in mind,” the courtier said, “everybody who works in the palace is actually on borrowed time.”
Outside, news crews will assemble on pre-agreed sites next to Canada Gate, at the bottom of Green Park. (Special fibre-optic cable runs under the Mall, for broadcasting British state occasions.) “I have got in front of me an instruction book a couple of inches thick,” said one TV director, who will cover the ceremonies, when we spoke on the phone. “Everything in there is planned. Everyone knows what to do.” Across the country, flags will come down and bells will toll. In 1952, Great Tom was rung at St Paul’s every minute for two hours when the news was announced. The bells at Westminster Abbey sounded and the Sebastopol bell, taken from the Black Sea city during the Crimean war and rung only on the occasion of a sovereign’s death, was tolled 56 times at Windsor – once for each year of George VI’s life – from 1.27pm until 2.22pm.
The 18th Duke of Norfolk, the Earl Marshal, will be in charge. Norfolks have overseen royal funerals since 1672. During the 20th century, a set of offices in St James’s Palace was always earmarked for their use. On the morning of George VI’s death, in 1952, these were being renovated. By five o’clock in the afternoon, the scaffolding was down and the rooms were re-carpeted, furnished and equipped with phones, lights and heating. During London Bridge, the Lord Chamberlain’s office in the palace will be the centre of operations. The current version of the plan is largely the work of Lieutenant-Colonel Anthony Mather, a former equerry who retired from the palace in 2014. As a 23-year-old guardsman in 1965, Mather led the pallbearers at Churchill’s funeral. (He declined to speak with me.) The government’s team – coordinating the police, security, transport and armed forces – will assemble at the Department of Culture, Media and Sport. Someone will have the job of printing around 10,000 tickets for invited guests, the first of which will be required for the proclamation of King Charles in about 24 hours time.

Everyone on the conference calls and around the table will know each other. For a narrow stratum of the British aristocracy and civil service, the art of planning major funerals – the solemnity, the excessive detail – is an expression of a certain national competence. Thirty-one people gathered for the first meeting to plan Churchill’s funeral, “Operation Hope Not”, in June 1959, six years before his death. Those working on London Bridge (and Tay Bridge and Forth Bridge, the Duke of Edinburgh’s funeral) will have corresponded for years in a language of bureaucratic euphemism, about “a possible future ceremony”; “a future problem”; “some inevitable occasion, the timing of which, however, is quite uncertain”.
The first plans for London Bridge date back to the 1960s, before being refined in detail at the turn of the century. Since then, there have been meetings two or three times a year for the various actors involved (around a dozen government departments, the police, army, broadcasters and the Royal Parks) in Church House, Westminster, the Palace, or elsewhere in Whitehall. Participants described them to me as deeply civil and methodical. “Everyone around the world is looking to us to do this again perfectly,” said one, “and we will.” Plans are updated and old versions are destroyed. Arcane and highly specific knowledge is shared. It takes 28 minutes at a slow march from the doors of St James’s to the entrance of Westminster Hall. The coffin must have a false lid, to hold the crown jewels, with a rim at least three inches high.
In theory, everything is settled. But in the hours after the Queen has gone, there will be details that only Charles can decide. “Everything has to be signed off by the Duke of Norfolk and the King,” one official told me. The Prince of Wales has waited longer to assume the British throne than any heir, and the world will now swirl around him at a new and uncrossable distance. “For a little while,” wrote Edward VIII, of the days between his father’s death and funeral, “I had the uneasy sensation of being left alone on a vast stage.” In recent years, much of the work on London Bridge has focused on the precise choreography of Charles’s accession. “There are really two things happening,” as one of his advisers told me. “There is the demise of a sovereign and then there is the making of a king.” Charles is scheduled to make his first address as head of state on the evening of his mother’s death.
Switchboards – the Palace, Downing Street, the Department of Culture, Media and Sport – will be swamped with calls during the first 48 hours. It is such a long time since the death of a monarch that many national organisations won’t know what to do. The official advice, as it was last time, will be that business should continue as usual. This won’t necessarily happen. If the Queen dies during Royal Ascot, the meet will be scrapped. The Marylebone Cricket Club is said to hold insurance for a similar outcome if she passes away during a home test match at Lord’s. After the death of George VI in 1952, rugby and hockey fixtures were called off, while football matches went ahead. Fans sang Abide With Me and the national anthem before kick off. The National Theatre will close if the news breaks before 4pm, and stay open if not. All games, including golf, will be banned in the Royal Parks.
In 2014, the National Association of Civic Officers circulated protocols for local authorities to follow in case of “the death of a senior national figure”. It advised stockpiling books of condolence – loose leaf, so inappropriate messages can be removed – to be placed in town halls, libraries and museums the day after the Queen dies. Mayors will mask their decorations (maces will be shrouded with black bags). In provincial cities, big screens will be erected so crowds can follow events taking place in London, and flags of all possible descriptions, including beach flags (but not red danger flags), will be flown at half mast. The country must be seen to know what it is doing. The most recent set of instructions to embassies in London went out just before Christmas. One of the biggest headaches will be for the Foreign Office, dealing with all the dignitaries who descend from all corners of the earth. In Papua New Guinea, where the Queen is the head of state, she is known as “Mama belong big family”. European royal families will be put up at the palace; the rest will stay at Claridge’s hotel.
In the House of Lords, the two thrones will be replaced by a chair and a cushion bearing the golden outline of a crown
Parliament will gather. If possible, both houses will sit within hours of the monarch’s death. In 1952, the Commons convened for two minutes before noon. “We cannot at this moment do more than record a spontaneous expression of our grief,” said Churchill, who was prime minister. The house met again in the evening, when MPs began swearing the oath of allegiance to the new sovereign. Messages rained in from parliaments and presidents. The US House of Representatives adjourned. Ethiopia announced two weeks of mourning. In the House of Lords, the two thrones will be replaced by a single chair and a cushion bearing the golden outline of a crown.
On D+1, the day after the Queen’s death, the flags will go back up, and at 11am, Charles will be proclaimed king. The Accession Council, which convenes in the red-carpeted Entrée Room of St James’s Palace, long predates parliament. The meeting, of the “Lords Spiritual and Temporal of this Realm”, derives from the Witan, the Anglo-Saxon feudal assembly of more than a thousand years ago. In theory, all 670 current members of the Privy Council, from Jeremy Corbyn to Ezekiel Alebua, the former prime minister of the Solomon Islands, are invited – but there is space for only 150 or so. In 1952, the Queen was one of two women present at her proclamation.
The clerk, a senior civil servant named Richard Tilbrook, will read out the formal wording, “Whereas it has pleased Almighty God to call to His Mercy our late Sovereign Lady Queen Elizabeth the Second of Blessed and Glorious memory…” and Charles will carry out the first official duties of his reign, swearing to protect the Church in Scotland, and speaking of the heavy burden that is now his.
At dawn, the central window overlooking Friary Court, on the palace’s eastern front, will have been removed and the roof outside covered in red felt. After Charles has spoken, trumpeters from the Life Guards, wearing red plumes on their helmets, will step outside, give three blasts and the Garter King of Arms, a genealogist named Thomas Woodcock, will stand on the balcony and begin the ritual proclamations of King Charles III. “I will make the first one,” said Woodcock, whose official salary of £49.07 has not been raised since the 1830s. In 1952, four newsreel cameras recorded the moment. This time there will be an audience of billions. People will look for auguries – in the weather, in birds flying overhead – for Charles’s reign. At Elizabeth’s accession, everyone was convinced that the new queen was too calm. The band of the Coldstream Guards will play the national anthem on drums that are wrapped in black cloth.
The proclamations will only just be getting started. From St James’s, the Garter King of Arms and half a dozen other heralds, looking like extras from an expensive Shakespeare production, will go by carriage to the statue of Charles I, at the base of Trafalgar Square, which marks London’s official midpoint, and read out the news again. A 41-gun salute – almost seven minutes of artillery – will be fired from Hyde Park. “There is no concession to modernity in this,” one former palace official told me. There will be cocked hats and horses everywhere. One of the concerns of the broadcasters is what the crowds will look like as they seek to record these moments of history. “The whole world is going to be bloody doing this,” said one news executive, holding up his phone in front of his face.
On the old boundary of the City of London, outside the Royal Courts of Justice, a red cord will hang across the road. The City Marshal, a former police detective chief superintendent named Philip Jordan, will be waiting on a horse. The heralds will be formally admitted to the City, and there will be more trumpets and more announcements: at the Royal Exchange, and then in a chain reaction across the country. Sixty-five years ago, there were crowds of 10,000 in Birmingham; 5,000 in Manchester; 15,000 in Edinburgh. High Sheriffs stood on the steps of town halls, and announced the new sovereign according to local custom. In York, the Mayor raised a toast to the Queen from a cup made of solid gold.
The same rituals will take place, but this time around the new king will also go out to meet his people. From his proclamation at St James’s, Charles will immediately tour the country, visiting Edinburgh, Belfast and Cardiff to attend services of remembrance for his mother and to meet the leaders of the devolved governments. There will also be civic receptions, for teachers, doctors and other ordinary folk, which are intended to reflect the altered spirit of his reign. “From day one, it is about the people rather than just the leaders being part of this new monarchy,” said one of his advisers, who described the plans for Charles’s progress as: “Lots of not being in a car, but actually walking around.” In the capital, the pageantry of royal death and accession will be archaic and bewildering. But from another city each day, there will be images of the new king mourning alongside his subjects, assuming his almighty, lonely role in the public imagination. “It is see and be seen,” the adviser said.

For a long time, the art of royal spectacle was for other, weaker peoples: Italians, Russians, and Habsburgs. British ritual occasions were a mess. At the funeral of Princess Charlotte, in 1817, the undertakers were drunk. Ten years later, St George’s Chapel was so cold during the burial of the Duke of York that George Canning, the foreign secretary, contracted rheumatic fever and the bishop of London died. “We never saw so motley, so rude, so ill-managed a body of persons,” reported the Times on the funeral of George IV, in 1830. Victoria’s coronation a few years later was nothing to write home about. The clergy got lost in the words; the singing was awful; and the royal jewellers made the coronation ring for the wrong finger. “Some nations have a gift for ceremonial,” the Marquess of Salisbury wrote in 1860. “In England the case is exactly the reverse.”
What we think of as the ancient rituals of the monarchy were mainly crafted in the late 19th century, towards the end of Victoria’s reign. Courtiers, politicians and constitutional theorists such as Walter Bagehot worried about the dismal sight of the Empress of India trooping around Windsor in her donkey cart. If the crown was going to give up its executive authority, it would have to inspire loyalty and awe by other means – and theatre was part of the answer. “The more democratic we get,” wrote Bagehot in 1867, “the more we shall get to like state and show.”
Obsessed by death, Victoria planned her own funeral with some style. But it was her son, Edward VII, who is largely responsible for reviving royal display. One courtier praised his “curious power of visualising a pageant”. He turned the state opening of parliament and military drills, like the Trooping of the Colour, into full fancy-dress occasions, and at his own passing, resurrected the medieval ritual of lying in state. Hundreds of thousands of subjects filed past his coffin in Westminster Hall in 1910, granting a new sense of intimacy to the body of the sovereign. By 1932, George V was a national father figure, giving the first royal Christmas speech to the nation – a tradition that persists today – in a radio address written for him by Rudyard Kipling.
The shambles and the remoteness of the 19th-century monarchy were replaced by an idealised family and historic pageantry invented in the 20th. In 1909, Kaiser Wilhelm II boasted about the quality of German martial processions: “The English cannot come up to us in this sort of thing.” Now we all know that no one else quite does it like the British.
The Queen, by all accounts a practical and unsentimental person, understands the theatrical power of the crown. “I have to be seen to be believed,” is said to be one of her catchphrases. And there is no reason to doubt that her funeral rites will evoke a rush of collective feeling. “I think there will be a huge and very genuine outpouring of deep emotion,” said Andrew Roberts, the historian. It will be all about her, and it will really be about us. There will be an urge to stand in the street, to see it with your own eyes, to be part of a multitude. The cumulative effect will be conservative. “I suspect the Queen’s death will intensify patriotic feelings,” one constitutional thinker told me, “and therefore fit the Brexit mood, if you like, and intensify the feeling that there is nothing to learn from foreigners.”
The wave of feeling will help to swamp the awkward facts of the succession. The rehabilitation of Camilla as the Duchess of Cornwall has been a quiet success for the monarchy, but her accession as queen will test how far that has come. Since she married Charles in 2005, Camilla has been officially known as Princess Consort, a formulation that has no historical or legal meaning. (“It’s bullshit,” one former courtier told me, describing it as “a sop to Diana”.) The fiction will end when Elizabeth II dies. Under common law, Camilla will become queen — the title always given to the wives of kings. There is no alternative. “She is queen whatever she is called,” as one scholar put it. “If she is called Princess Consort there is an implication that she is not quite up to it. It’s a problem.” There are plans to clarify this situation before the Queen dies, but King Charles is currently expected to introduce Queen Camilla at his Accession Council on D+1. (Camilla was invited to join the Privy Council last June, so she will be present.) Confirmation of her title will form part of the first tumultuous 24 hours.
Crowds watch naval ratings pulling the gun carriage bearing the coffin of Sir Winston Churchill to St Paul’s Cathedral.
  Crowds watch naval ratings pulling the gun carriage bearing the coffin of Sir Winston Churchill to St Paul’s Cathedral. Photograph: PA
The Commonwealth is the other knot. In 1952, at the last accession, there were only eight members of the new entity taking shape in the outline of the British Empire. The Queen was the head of state in seven of them, and she was proclaimed Head of the Commonwealth to accommodate India’s lone status as a republic. Sixty-five years later, there are 36 republics in the organisation, which the Queen has attended assiduously throughout her reign, and now comprises a third of the world’s population. The problem is that the role is not hereditary, and there is no procedure for choosing the next one. “It’s a complete grey area,” said Philip Murphy, director of the Institute of Commonwealth Studies at the University of London.
For several years, the palace has been discreetly trying to ensure Charles’s succession as head of the bloc, in the absence of any other obvious option. Last October, Julia Gillard, the former prime minister of Australia, revealed that Christopher Geidt, the Queen’s private secretary, had visited her in February 2013 to ask her to support the idea. Canada and New Zealand have since fallen into line, but the title is unlikely to be included in King Charles’s proclamation. Instead it will be part of the discreet international lobbying that takes place as London fills up with diplomats and presidents in the days after the Queen’s death. There will be serious, busy receptions at the palace. “We are not talking about entertaining. But you have to show some form of respect for the fact that they have come,” said one courtier. “Such feasting and commingling, with my father still unburied, seemed to me unfitting and heartless,” wrote Edward VIII in his memoirs. The show must go on. Business will mix with grief.

There will be a thousand final preparations in the nine days before the funeral. Soldiers will walk the processional routes. Prayers will be rehearsed. On D+1, Westminster Hall will be locked, cleaned and its stone floor covered with 1,500 metres of carpet. Candles, their wicks already burnt in, will be brought over from the Abbey. The streets around will be converted into ceremonial spaces. The bollards on the Mall will be removed, and rails put up to protect the hedges. There is space for 7,000 seats on Horse Guards Parade and 1,345 on Carlton House Terrace. In 1952, all the rhododendrons in Parliament Square were pulled up and women were barred from the roof of Admiralty Arch. “Nothing can be done to protect the bulbs,” noted the Ministry of Works. The Queen’s 10 pallbearers will be chosen, and practise carrying their burden out of sight in a barracks somewhere. British royals are buried in lead-lined coffins. Diana’s weighed a quarter of a ton.
The population will slide between sadness and irritability. In 2002, 130 people complained to the BBC about its insensitive coverage of the Queen Mother’s death; another 1,500 complained that Casualty was moved to BBC2. The TV schedules in the days after the Queen’s death will change again. Comedy won’t be taken off the BBC completely, but most satire will. There will be Dad’s Armyreruns, but no Have I Got News For You.
People will be touchy either way. After the death of George VI, in a society much more Christian and deferential than this one, a Mass Observation survey showed that people objected to the endless maudlin music, the forelock-tugging coverage. “Don’t they think of old folk, sick people, invalids?” one 60-year old woman asked. “It’s been terrible for them, all this gloom.” In a bar in Notting Hill, one drinker said, “He’s only shit and soil now like anyone else,” which started a fight. Social media will be a tinderbox. In 1972, the writer Brian Masters estimated that around a third of us have dreamed about the Queen – she stands for authority and our mothers. People who are not expecting to cry will cry.
On D+4, the coffin will move to Westminster Hall, to lie in state for four full days. The procession from Buckingham Palace will be the first great military parade of London Bridge: down the Mall, through Horse Guards, and past the Cenotaph. More or less the same slow march, from St James’s Palace for the Queen Mother in 2002, involved 1,600 personnel and stretched for half a mile. The bands played Beethoven and a gun was fired every minute from Hyde Park. The route is thought to hold around a million people. The plan to get them there is based on the logistics for the London 2012 Olympics.
There may be corgis. In 1910, the mourners for Edward VII were led by his fox terrier, Caesar. His son’s coffin was followed to Wolferton station, at Sandringham, by Jock, a white shooting pony. The procession will reach Westminster Hall on the hour. The timing will be just so. “Big Ben beginning to chime as the wheels come to a stop,” as one broadcaster put it.
Everything will feel fantastically well-ordered and consoling and designed to within a quarter of an inch, because it is
Inside the hall, there will be psalms as the coffin is placed on a catafalque draped in purple. King Charles will be back from his tour of the home nations, to lead the mourners. The orb, the sceptre and the Imperial Crown will be fixed in place, soldiers will stand guard and then the doors opened to the multitude that will have formed outside and will now stream past the Queen for 23 hours a day. For George VI, 305,000 subjects came. The line was four miles long. The palace is expecting half a million for the Queen. There will be a wondrous queue – the ultimate British ritual undertaking, with canteens, police, portable toilets and strangers talking cautiously to one another – stretching down to Vauxhall Bridge and then over the river and back along the Albert Embankment. MPs will skip to the front.
Under the chestnut roof of the hall, everything will feel fantastically well-ordered and consoling and designed to within a quarter of an inch, because it is. A 47-page internal report compiled after George VI’s funeral suggested attaching metal rollers to the catafalque, to smooth the landing of the coffin when it arrives. Four soldiers will stand silent vigil for 20 minutes at a time, with two ready in reserve. The RAF, the Army, the Royal Navy, the Beefeaters, the Gurkhas – everyone will take part. The most senior officer of the four will stand at the foot of the coffin, the most junior at the head. The wreaths on the coffin will be renewed every day. For Churchill’s lying in state in 1965, a replica of the hall was set up in the ballroom of the St Ermin’s hotel nearby, so soldiers could practise their movements before they went on duty. In 1936, the four sons of George V revived The Prince’s Vigil, in which members of the royal family arrive unannounced and stand watch. The Queen’s children and grandchildren – including women for the first time – will do the same.
Before dawn on D+9, the day of the funeral, in the silent hall, the jewels will be taken off the coffin and cleaned. In 1952, it took three jewellers almost two hours to remove all the dust. (The Star of Africa, on the royal sceptre, is the second-largest cut diamond in the world.) Most of the country will be waking to a day off. Shops will close, or go to bank holiday hours. Some will display pictures of the Queen in their windows. The stock market will not open. The night before, there will have been church services in towns across the UK. There are plans to open football stadiums for memorial services if necessary.
At 9am, Big Ben will strike. The bell’s hammer will then be covered with a leather pad seven-sixteenths of an inch thick, and it will ring out in muffled tones. The distance from Westminster Hall to the Abbey is only a few hundred metres. The occasion will feel familiar, even though it is new: the Queen will be the first British monarch to have her funeral in the Abbey since 1760. The 2,000 guests will be sitting inside. Television cameras, in hides made of painted bricks, will search for the images that we will remember. In 1965, the dockers dipped their cranes for Churchill. In 1997, it was the word “Mummy” on the flowers for Diana from her sons.
When the coffin reaches the abbey doors, at 11 o’clock, the country will fall silent. The clatter will still. Train stations will cease announcements. Buses will stop and drivers will get out at the side of the road. In 1952, at the same moment, all of the passengers on a flight from London to New York rose from their seats and stood, 18,000 feet above Canada, and bowed their heads.
Back then, the stakes were clearer, or at least they seemed that way. A stammering king had been part of the embattled British way of life that had survived an existential war. The wreath that Churchill laid said: “For Gallantry.” The BBC commentator in 1952, the man who deciphered the rubies and the rituals for the nation, was Richard Dimbleby, the first British reporter to enter Bergen-Belsen and convey its horrors, seven years before. “How true tonight that statement spoken by an unknown man of his beloved father,” murmured Dimbleby, describing the lying in state to millions. “The sunset of his death tinged the whole world’s sky.”
The trumpets and the ancientness were proof of our survival; and the king’s young daughter would rule the peace. “These royal ceremonies represented decency, tradition, and public duty, in contradiction to the ghastliness of Nazism,” as one historian told me. The monarchy had traded power for theatre, and in the aftermath of war, the illusion became more powerful than anyone could have imagined. “It was restorative,” Jonathan Dimbleby, Richard’s son and biographer, told me.
His brother, David, is likely to be behind the BBC microphone this time. The question will be what the bells and the emblems and the heralds represent now. At what point does the pomp of an imperial monarchy become ridiculous amid the circumstances of a diminished nation? “The worry,” a historian said, “is that it is just circus animals.”
If the monarchy exists as theatre, then this doubt is the part of the drama. Can they still pull it off? Knowing everything that we know in 2017, how can it possibly hold that a single person might contain the soul of a nation? The point of the monarchy is not to answer such questions. It is to continue. “What a lot of our life we spend in acting,” the Queen Mother used to say.
Inside the Abbey, the archbishop will speak. During prayers, the broadcasters will refrain from showing royal faces. When the coffin emerges again, the pallbearers will place it on the green gun carriage that was used for the Queen’s father, and his father and his father’s father, and 138 junior sailors will drop their heads to their chests and pull. The tradition of being hauled by the Royal Navy began in 1901 when Victoria’s funeral horses, all white, threatened to bolt at Windsor Station and a waiting contingent of ratings stepped in to pull the coffin instead.
The procession will swing on to the Mall. In 1952, the RAF was grounded out of respect for King George VI. In 2002, at 12.45pm, a Lancaster bomber and two Spitfires flew over the cortege for his wife and dipped their wings. The crowds will be deep for the Queen. She will get everything. From Hyde Park Corner, the hearse will go 23 miles by road to Windsor Castle, which claims the bodies of British sovereigns. The royal household will be waiting for her, standing on the grass. Then the cloister gates will be closed and cameras will stop broadcasting. Inside the chapel, the lift to the royal vault will descend, and King Charles will drop a handful of red earth from a silver bowl.
 This article was amended on 16 March 2017 to correct some minor errors including the fact that three of the Queen’s last four prime ministers, not the last three, were born after her accession – Blair, Cameron and May; that the Star of Africa on the royal sceptre is not the largest diamond in the world, but the second-largest cut diamond; and that the word “son’s” was originally missing from the second sentence in this passage: “In 1910, the mourners for Edward VII were led by his fox terrier, Caesar. His son’s coffin was followed to Wolferton station, at Sandringham, by Jock, a white shooting pony.”
In the plans that exist for the death of the Queen – and there are many versions, held by Buckingham Palace, the government and the BBC – most envisage that she will die after a short illness. Her family and doctors will be there. When the Queen Mother passed away on the afternoon of Easter Saturday, in 2002, at the Royal Lodge in Windsor, she had time to telephone friends to say goodbye, and to give away some of her horses. In these last hours, the Queen’s senior doctor, a gastroenterologist named Professor Huw Thomas, will be in charge. He will look after his patient, control access to her room and consider what information should be made public. The bond between sovereign and subjects is a strange and mostly unknowable thing. A nation’s life becomes a person’s, and then the string must break.
There will be bulletins from the palace – not many, but enough. “The Queen is suffering from great physical prostration, accompanied by symptoms which cause much anxiety,” announced Sir James Reid, Queen Victoria’s physician, two days before her death in 1901. “The King’s life is moving peacefully towards its close,” was the final notice issued by George V’s doctor, Lord Dawson, at 9.30pm on the night of 20 January 1936. Not long afterwards, Dawson injected the king with 750mg of morphine and a gram of cocaine – enough to kill him twice over – in order to ease the monarch’s suffering, and to have him expire in time for the printing presses of the Times, which rolled at midnight.
Her eyes will be closed and Charles will be king. His siblings will kiss his hands. The first official to deal with the news will be Sir Christopher Geidt, the Queen’s private secretary, a former diplomat who was given a second knighthood in 2014, in part for planning her succession.
Geidt will contact the prime minister. The last time a British monarch died, 65 years ago, the demise of George VI was conveyed in a code word, “Hyde Park Corner”, to Buckingham Palace, to prevent switchboard operators from finding out. For Elizabeth II, the plan for what happens next is known as “London Bridge.” The prime minister will be woken, if she is not already awake, and civil servants will say “London Bridge is down” on secure lines. From the Foreign Office’s Global Response Centre, at an undisclosed location in the capital, the news will go out to the 15 governments outside the UK where the Queen is also the head of state, and the 36 other nations of the Commonwealth for whom she has served as a symbolic figurehead – a face familiar in dreams and the untidy drawings of a billion schoolchildren – since the dawn of the atomic age.
For a time, she will be gone without our knowing it. The information will travel like the compressional wave ahead of an earthquake, detectable only by special equipment. Governors general, ambassadors and prime ministers will learn first. Cupboards will be opened in search of black armbands, three-and-a-quarter inches wide, to be worn on the left arm.
The rest of us will find out more quickly than before. On 6 February 1952, George VI was found by his valet at Sandringham at 7.30am. The BBC did not broadcast the news until 11.15am, almost four hours later. When Princess Diana died at 4am local time at the Pitié-Salpêtrière hospital in Paris on 31 August 1997, journalists accompanying the former foreign secretary, Robin Cook, on a visit to the Philippines knew within 15 minutes. For many years the BBC was told about royal deaths first, but its monopoly on broadcasting to the empire has gone now. When the Queen dies, the announcement will go out as a newsflash to the Press Association and the rest of the world’s media simultaneously. At the same instant, a footman in mourning clothes will emerge from a door at Buckingham Palace, cross the dull pink gravel and pin a black-edged notice to the gates. While he does this, the palace website will be transformed into a sombre, single page, showing the same text on a dark background.
Screens will glow. There will be tweets. At the BBC, the “radio alert transmission system” (Rats), will be activated – a cold war-era alarm designed to withstand an attack on the nation’s infrastructure. Rats, which is also sometimes referred to as “royal about to snuff it”, is a near mythical part of the intricate architecture of ritual and rehearsals for the death of major royal personalities that the BBC has maintained since the 1930s. Most staff have only ever seen it work in tests; many have never seen it work at all. “Whenever there is a strange noise in the newsroom, someone always asks, ‘Is that the Rats?’ Because we don’t know what it sounds like,” one regional reporter told me.
All news organisations will scramble to get films on air and obituaries online. At the Guardian, the deputy editor has a list of prepared stories pinned to his wall. The Times is said to have 11 days of coverage ready to go. At Sky News and ITN, which for years rehearsed the death of the Queen substituting the name “Mrs Robinson”, calls will go out to royal experts who have already signed contracts to speak exclusively on those channels. “I am going to be sitting outside the doors of the Abbey on a hugely enlarged trestle table commentating to 300 million Americans about this,” one told me.
For people stuck in traffic, or with Heart FM on in the background, there will only be the subtlest of indications, at first, that something is going on. Britain’s commercial radio stations have a network of blue “obit lights”, which is tested once a week and supposed to light up in the event of a national catastrophe. When the news breaks, these lights will start flashing, to alert DJs to switch to the news in the next few minutes and to play inoffensive music in the meantime. Every station, down to hospital radio, has prepared music lists made up of “Mood 2” (sad) or “Mood 1” (saddest) songs to reach for in times of sudden mourning. “If you ever hear Haunted Dancehall (Nursery Remix) by Sabres of Paradise on daytime Radio 1, turn the TV on,” wrote Chris Price, a BBC radio producer, for the Huffington Post in 2011. “Something terrible has just happened.”
Having plans in place for the death of leading royals is a practice that makes some journalists uncomfortable. “There is one story which is deemed to be so much more important than others,” one former Today programme producer complained to me. For 30 years, BBC news teams were hauled to work on quiet Sunday mornings to perform mock storylines about the Queen Mother choking on a fishbone. There was once a scenario about Princess Diana dying in a car crash on the M4.
These well-laid plans have not always helped. In 2002, when the Queen Mother died, the obit lights didn’t come on because someone failed to push the button down properly. On the BBC, Peter Sissons, the veteran anchor, was criticised for wearing a maroon tie. Sissons was the victim of a BBC policy change, issued after the September 11 attacks, to moderate its coverage and reduce the number of “category one” royals eligible for the full obituary procedure. The last words in Sissons’s ear before going on air were: “Don’t go overboard. She’s a very old woman who had to go some time.”
But there will be no extemporising with the Queen. The newsreaders will wear black suits and black ties. Category one was made for her. Programmes will stop. Networks will merge. BBC 1, 2 and 4 will be interrupted and revert silently to their respective idents – an exercise class in a village hall, a swan waiting on a pond – before coming together for the news. Listeners to Radio 4 and Radio 5 live will hear a specific formulation of words, “This is the BBC from London,” which, intentionally or not, will summon a spirit of national emergency.
The main reason for rehearsals is to have words that are roughly approximate to the moment. “It is with the greatest sorrow that we make the following announcement,” said John Snagge, the BBC presenter who informed the world of the death of George VI. (The news was repeated seven times, every 15 minutes, and then the BBC went silent for five hours). According to one former head of BBC news, a very similar set of words will be used for the Queen. The rehearsals for her are different to the other members of the family, he explained. People become upset, and contemplate the unthinkable oddness of her absence. “She is the only monarch that most of us have ever known,” he said. The royal standard will appear on the screen. The national anthem will play. You will remember where you were.

When people think of a contemporary royal death in Britain, they think, inescapably, of Diana. The passing of the Queen will be monumental by comparison. It may not be as nakedly emotional, but its reach will be wider, and its implications more dramatic. “It will be quite fundamental,” as one former courtier told me.
Part of the effect will come from the overwhelming weight of things happening. The routine for modern royal funerals is more or less familiar (Diana’s was based on “Tay Bridge”, the plan for the Queen Mother’s). But the death of a British monarch, and the accession of a new head of state, is a ritual that is passing out of living memory: three of the Queen’s last four prime ministers were born after she came to the throne. When she dies, both houses of parliament will be recalled, people will go home from work early, and aircraft pilots will announce the news to their passengers. In the nine days that follow (in London Bridge planning documents, these are known as “D-day”, “D+1” and so on) there will be ritual proclamations, a four-nation tour by the new king, bowdlerised television programming, and a diplomatic assembling in London not seen since the death of Winston Churchill in 1965.
More overwhelming than any of this, though, there will be an almighty psychological reckoning for the kingdom that she leaves behind. The Queen is Britain’s last living link with our former greatness – the nation’s id, its problematic self-regard – which is still defined by our victory in the second world war. One leading historian, who like most people I interviewed for this article declined to be named, stressed that the farewell for this country’s longest-serving monarch will be magnificent. “Oh, she will get everything,” he said. “We were all told that the funeral of Churchill was the requiem for Britain as a great power. But actually it will really be over when she goes.”
There will be an almighty psychological reckoning for the kingdom that she leaves behind
Unlike the US presidency, say, monarchies allow huge passages of time – a century, in some cases – to become entwined with an individual. The second Elizabethan age is likely to be remembered as a reign of uninterrupted national decline, and even, if she lives long enough and Scotland departs the union, as one of disintegration. Life and politics at the end of her rule will be unrecognisable from their grandeur and innocence at its beginning. “We don’t blame her for it,” Philip Ziegler, the historian and royal biographer, told me. “We have declined with her, so to speak.”
The obituary films will remind us what a different country she inherited. One piece of footage will be played again and again: from her 21st birthday, in 1947,when Princess Elizabeth was on holiday with her parents in Cape Town. She was 6,000 miles from home and comfortably within the pale of the British Empire. The princess sits at a table with a microphone. The shadow of a tree plays on her shoulder. The camera adjusts three or four times as she talks, and on each occasion, she twitches momentarily, betraying tiny flashes of aristocratic irritation. “I declare before you all that my whole life, whether it be long or short, shall be devoted to your service, and the service of our great imperial family to which we all belong,” she says, enunciating vowels and a conception of the world that have both vanished.
It is not unusual for a country to succumb to a state of denial as a long chapter in its history is about to end. When it became public that Queen Victoria was dying, at the age of 82, a widow for half her life, “astonished grief … swept the country”, wrote her biographer, Lytton Strachey. In the minds of her subjects, the queen’s mortality had become unimaginable; and with her demise, everything was suddenly at risk, placed in the hands of an elderly and untrusted heir, Edward VII. “The wild waters are upon us now,” wrote the American Henry James, who had moved to London 30 years before.
The parallels with the unease that we will feel at the death of Elizabeth II are obvious, but without the consolation of Britain’s status in 1901 as the world’s most successful country. “We have to have narratives for royal events,” the historian told me. “In the Victorian reign, everything got better and better, and bigger and bigger. We certainly can’t tell that story today.”
The result is an enormous objection to even thinking about – let alone talking or writing about – what will happen when the Queen dies. We avoid the subject as we avoid it in our own families. It seems like good manners, but it is also fear. The reporting for this article involved dozens of interviews with broadcasters, government officials, and departed palace staff, several of whom have worked on London Bridge directly. Almost all insisted on complete secrecy. “This meeting never happened,” I was told after one conversation in a gentleman’s club on Pall Mall. Buckingham Palace, meanwhile, has a policy of not commenting on funeral arrangements for members of the royal family.
And yet this taboo, like much to do with the monarchy, is not entirely rational, and masks a parallel reality. The next great rupture in Britain’s national life has, in fact, been planned to the minute. It involves matters of major public importance, will be paid for by us, and is definitely going to happen. According to the Office of National Statistics, a British woman who reaches the age of 91 – as the Queen will in April – has an average life expectancy of four years and three months. The Queen is approaching the end of her reign at a time of maximum disquiet about Britain’s place in the world, at a moment when internal political tensions are close to breaking her kingdom apart. Her death will also release its own destabilising forces: in the accession of Queen Camilla; in the optics of a new king who is already an old man; and in the future of the Commonwealth, an invention largely of her making. (The Queen’s title of “Head of the Commonwealth” is not hereditary.) Australia’s prime minister and leader of the opposition both want the country to become a republic.
Coping with the way these events fall is the next great challenge of the House of Windsor, the last European royal family to practise coronations and to persist – with the complicity of a willing public – in the magic of the whole enterprise. That is why the planning for the Queen’s death and its ceremonial aftermath is so extensive. Succession is part of the job. It is an opportunity for order to be affirmed. Queen Victoria had written down the contents of her coffin by 1875. The Queen Mother’s funeral was rehearsed for 22 years. Louis Mountbatten, the last Viceroy of India, prepared a winter and a summer menu for his funeral lunch. London Bridge is the Queen’s exit plan. “It’s history,” as one of her courtiers said. It will be 10 days of sorrow and spectacle in which, rather like the dazzling mirror of the monarchy itself, we will revel in who we were and avoid the question of what we have become.

The idea is for nothing to be unforeseen. If the Queen dies abroad, a BAe 146 jet from the RAF’s No 32 squadron, known as the Royal Flight, will take off from Northolt, at the western edge of London, with a coffin on board. The royal undertakers, Leverton & Sons, keep what they call a “first call coffin” ready in case of royal emergencies. Both George V and George VI were buried in oak grown on the Sandringham estate in Norfolk. If the Queen dies there, her body will come to London by car after a day or two.
The most elaborate plans are for what happens if she passes away at Balmoral, where she spends three months of the year. This will trigger an initial wave of Scottish ritual. First, the Queen’s body will lie at rest in her smallest palace, at Holyroodhouse, in Edinburgh, where she is traditionally guarded by the Royal Company of Archers, who wear eagle feathers in their bonnets. Then the coffin will be carried up the Royal Mile to St Giles’s cathedral, for a service of reception, before being put on board the Royal Train at Waverley station for a sad progress down the east coast mainline. Crowds are expected at level crossings and on station platforms the length of the country – from Musselburgh and Thirsk in the north, to Peterborough and Hatfield in the south – to throw flowers on the passing train. (Another locomotive will follow behind, to clear debris from the tracks.) “It’s actually very complicated,” one transport official told me.
The funeral procession of the late King George VI in 1952.
  The funeral procession of the late King George VI in 1952. Photograph: Popperfoto
In every scenario, the Queen’s body returns to the throne room in Buckingham Palace, which overlooks the north-west corner of the Quadrangle, its interior courtyard. There will be an altar, the pall, the royal standard, and four Grenadier Guards, their bearskin hats inclined, their rifles pointing to the floor, standing watch. In the corridors, staff employed by the Queen for more than 50 years will pass, following procedures they know by heart. “Your professionalism takes over because there is a job to be done,” said one veteran of royal funerals. There will be no time for sadness, or to worry about what happens next. Charles will bring in many of his own staff when he accedes. “Bear in mind,” the courtier said, “everybody who works in the palace is actually on borrowed time.”
Outside, news crews will assemble on pre-agreed sites next to Canada Gate, at the bottom of Green Park. (Special fibre-optic cable runs under the Mall, for broadcasting British state occasions.) “I have got in front of me an instruction book a couple of inches thick,” said one TV director, who will cover the ceremonies, when we spoke on the phone. “Everything in there is planned. Everyone knows what to do.” Across the country, flags will come down and bells will toll. In 1952, Great Tom was rung at St Paul’s every minute for two hours when the news was announced. The bells at Westminster Abbey sounded and the Sebastopol bell, taken from the Black Sea city during the Crimean war and rung only on the occasion of a sovereign’s death, was tolled 56 times at Windsor – once for each year of George VI’s life – from 1.27pm until 2.22pm.
The 18th Duke of Norfolk, the Earl Marshal, will be in charge. Norfolks have overseen royal funerals since 1672. During the 20th century, a set of offices in St James’s Palace was always earmarked for their use. On the morning of George VI’s death, in 1952, these were being renovated. By five o’clock in the afternoon, the scaffolding was down and the rooms were re-carpeted, furnished and equipped with phones, lights and heating. During London Bridge, the Lord Chamberlain’s office in the palace will be the centre of operations. The current version of the plan is largely the work of Lieutenant-Colonel Anthony Mather, a former equerry who retired from the palace in 2014. As a 23-year-old guardsman in 1965, Mather led the pallbearers at Churchill’s funeral. (He declined to speak with me.) The government’s team – coordinating the police, security, transport and armed forces – will assemble at the Department of Culture, Media and Sport. Someone will have the job of printing around 10,000 tickets for invited guests, the first of which will be required for the proclamation of King Charles in about 24 hours time.

Everyone on the conference calls and around the table will know each other. For a narrow stratum of the British aristocracy and civil service, the art of planning major funerals – the solemnity, the excessive detail – is an expression of a certain national competence. Thirty-one people gathered for the first meeting to plan Churchill’s funeral, “Operation Hope Not”, in June 1959, six years before his death. Those working on London Bridge (and Tay Bridge and Forth Bridge, the Duke of Edinburgh’s funeral) will have corresponded for years in a language of bureaucratic euphemism, about “a possible future ceremony”; “a future problem”; “some inevitable occasion, the timing of which, however, is quite uncertain”.
The first plans for London Bridge date back to the 1960s, before being refined in detail at the turn of the century. Since then, there have been meetings two or three times a year for the various actors involved (around a dozen government departments, the police, army, broadcasters and the Royal Parks) in Church House, Westminster, the Palace, or elsewhere in Whitehall. Participants described them to me as deeply civil and methodical. “Everyone around the world is looking to us to do this again perfectly,” said one, “and we will.” Plans are updated and old versions are destroyed. Arcane and highly specific knowledge is shared. It takes 28 minutes at a slow march from the doors of St James’s to the entrance of Westminster Hall. The coffin must have a false lid, to hold the crown jewels, with a rim at least three inches high.
In theory, everything is settled. But in the hours after the Queen has gone, there will be details that only Charles can decide. “Everything has to be signed off by the Duke of Norfolk and the King,” one official told me. The Prince of Wales has waited longer to assume the British throne than any heir, and the world will now swirl around him at a new and uncrossable distance. “For a little while,” wrote Edward VIII, of the days between his father’s death and funeral, “I had the uneasy sensation of being left alone on a vast stage.” In recent years, much of the work on London Bridge has focused on the precise choreography of Charles’s accession. “There are really two things happening,” as one of his advisers told me. “There is the demise of a sovereign and then there is the making of a king.” Charles is scheduled to make his first address as head of state on the evening of his mother’s death.
Switchboards – the Palace, Downing Street, the Department of Culture, Media and Sport – will be swamped with calls during the first 48 hours. It is such a long time since the death of a monarch that many national organisations won’t know what to do. The official advice, as it was last time, will be that business should continue as usual. This won’t necessarily happen. If the Queen dies during Royal Ascot, the meet will be scrapped. The Marylebone Cricket Club is said to hold insurance for a similar outcome if she passes away during a home test match at Lord’s. After the death of George VI in 1952, rugby and hockey fixtures were called off, while football matches went ahead. Fans sang Abide With Me and the national anthem before kick off. The National Theatre will close if the news breaks before 4pm, and stay open if not. All games, including golf, will be banned in the Royal Parks.
In 2014, the National Association of Civic Officers circulated protocols for local authorities to follow in case of “the death of a senior national figure”. It advised stockpiling books of condolence – loose leaf, so inappropriate messages can be removed – to be placed in town halls, libraries and museums the day after the Queen dies. Mayors will mask their decorations (maces will be shrouded with black bags). In provincial cities, big screens will be erected so crowds can follow events taking place in London, and flags of all possible descriptions, including beach flags (but not red danger flags), will be flown at half mast. The country must be seen to know what it is doing. The most recent set of instructions to embassies in London went out just before Christmas. One of the biggest headaches will be for the Foreign Office, dealing with all the dignitaries who descend from all corners of the earth. In Papua New Guinea, where the Queen is the head of state, she is known as “Mama belong big family”. European royal families will be put up at the palace; the rest will stay at Claridge’s hotel.
In the House of Lords, the two thrones will be replaced by a chair and a cushion bearing the golden outline of a crown
Parliament will gather. If possible, both houses will sit within hours of the monarch’s death. In 1952, the Commons convened for two minutes before noon. “We cannot at this moment do more than record a spontaneous expression of our grief,” said Churchill, who was prime minister. The house met again in the evening, when MPs began swearing the oath of allegiance to the new sovereign. Messages rained in from parliaments and presidents. The US House of Representatives adjourned. Ethiopia announced two weeks of mourning. In the House of Lords, the two thrones will be replaced by a single chair and a cushion bearing the golden outline of a crown.
On D+1, the day after the Queen’s death, the flags will go back up, and at 11am, Charles will be proclaimed king. The Accession Council, which convenes in the red-carpeted Entrée Room of St James’s Palace, long predates parliament. The meeting, of the “Lords Spiritual and Temporal of this Realm”, derives from the Witan, the Anglo-Saxon feudal assembly of more than a thousand years ago. In theory, all 670 current members of the Privy Council, from Jeremy Corbyn to Ezekiel Alebua, the former prime minister of the Solomon Islands, are invited – but there is space for only 150 or so. In 1952, the Queen was one of two women present at her proclamation.
The clerk, a senior civil servant named Richard Tilbrook, will read out the formal wording, “Whereas it has pleased Almighty God to call to His Mercy our late Sovereign Lady Queen Elizabeth the Second of Blessed and Glorious memory…” and Charles will carry out the first official duties of his reign, swearing to protect the Church in Scotland, and speaking of the heavy burden that is now his.
At dawn, the central window overlooking Friary Court, on the palace’s eastern front, will have been removed and the roof outside covered in red felt. After Charles has spoken, trumpeters from the Life Guards, wearing red plumes on their helmets, will step outside, give three blasts and the Garter King of Arms, a genealogist named Thomas Woodcock, will stand on the balcony and begin the ritual proclamations of King Charles III. “I will make the first one,” said Woodcock, whose official salary of £49.07 has not been raised since the 1830s. In 1952, four newsreel cameras recorded the moment. This time there will be an audience of billions. People will look for auguries – in the weather, in birds flying overhead – for Charles’s reign. At Elizabeth’s accession, everyone was convinced that the new queen was too calm. The band of the Coldstream Guards will play the national anthem on drums that are wrapped in black cloth.
The proclamations will only just be getting started. From St James’s, the Garter King of Arms and half a dozen other heralds, looking like extras from an expensive Shakespeare production, will go by carriage to the statue of Charles I, at the base of Trafalgar Square, which marks London’s official midpoint, and read out the news again. A 41-gun salute – almost seven minutes of artillery – will be fired from Hyde Park. “There is no concession to modernity in this,” one former palace official told me. There will be cocked hats and horses everywhere. One of the concerns of the broadcasters is what the crowds will look like as they seek to record these moments of history. “The whole world is going to be bloody doing this,” said one news executive, holding up his phone in front of his face.
On the old boundary of the City of London, outside the Royal Courts of Justice, a red cord will hang across the road. The City Marshal, a former police detective chief superintendent named Philip Jordan, will be waiting on a horse. The heralds will be formally admitted to the City, and there will be more trumpets and more announcements: at the Royal Exchange, and then in a chain reaction across the country. Sixty-five years ago, there were crowds of 10,000 in Birmingham; 5,000 in Manchester; 15,000 in Edinburgh. High Sheriffs stood on the steps of town halls, and announced the new sovereign according to local custom. In York, the Mayor raised a toast to the Queen from a cup made of solid gold.
The same rituals will take place, but this time around the new king will also go out to meet his people. From his proclamation at St James’s, Charles will immediately tour the country, visiting Edinburgh, Belfast and Cardiff to attend services of remembrance for his mother and to meet the leaders of the devolved governments. There will also be civic receptions, for teachers, doctors and other ordinary folk, which are intended to reflect the altered spirit of his reign. “From day one, it is about the people rather than just the leaders being part of this new monarchy,” said one of his advisers, who described the plans for Charles’s progress as: “Lots of not being in a car, but actually walking around.” In the capital, the pageantry of royal death and accession will be archaic and bewildering. But from another city each day, there will be images of the new king mourning alongside his subjects, assuming his almighty, lonely role in the public imagination. “It is see and be seen,” the adviser said.

For a long time, the art of royal spectacle was for other, weaker peoples: Italians, Russians, and Habsburgs. British ritual occasions were a mess. At the funeral of Princess Charlotte, in 1817, the undertakers were drunk. Ten years later, St George’s Chapel was so cold during the burial of the Duke of York that George Canning, the foreign secretary, contracted rheumatic fever and the bishop of London died. “We never saw so motley, so rude, so ill-managed a body of persons,” reported the Times on the funeral of George IV, in 1830. Victoria’s coronation a few years later was nothing to write home about. The clergy got lost in the words; the singing was awful; and the royal jewellers made the coronation ring for the wrong finger. “Some nations have a gift for ceremonial,” the Marquess of Salisbury wrote in 1860. “In England the case is exactly the reverse.”
What we think of as the ancient rituals of the monarchy were mainly crafted in the late 19th century, towards the end of Victoria’s reign. Courtiers, politicians and constitutional theorists such as Walter Bagehot worried about the dismal sight of the Empress of India trooping around Windsor in her donkey cart. If the crown was going to give up its executive authority, it would have to inspire loyalty and awe by other means – and theatre was part of the answer. “The more democratic we get,” wrote Bagehot in 1867, “the more we shall get to like state and show.”
Obsessed by death, Victoria planned her own funeral with some style. But it was her son, Edward VII, who is largely responsible for reviving royal display. One courtier praised his “curious power of visualising a pageant”. He turned the state opening of parliament and military drills, like the Trooping of the Colour, into full fancy-dress occasions, and at his own passing, resurrected the medieval ritual of lying in state. Hundreds of thousands of subjects filed past his coffin in Westminster Hall in 1910, granting a new sense of intimacy to the body of the sovereign. By 1932, George V was a national father figure, giving the first royal Christmas speech to the nation – a tradition that persists today – in a radio address written for him by Rudyard Kipling.
The shambles and the remoteness of the 19th-century monarchy were replaced by an idealised family and historic pageantry invented in the 20th. In 1909, Kaiser Wilhelm II boasted about the quality of German martial processions: “The English cannot come up to us in this sort of thing.” Now we all know that no one else quite does it like the British.
The Queen, by all accounts a practical and unsentimental person, understands the theatrical power of the crown. “I have to be seen to be believed,” is said to be one of her catchphrases. And there is no reason to doubt that her funeral rites will evoke a rush of collective feeling. “I think there will be a huge and very genuine outpouring of deep emotion,” said Andrew Roberts, the historian. It will be all about her, and it will really be about us. There will be an urge to stand in the street, to see it with your own eyes, to be part of a multitude. The cumulative effect will be conservative. “I suspect the Queen’s death will intensify patriotic feelings,” one constitutional thinker told me, “and therefore fit the Brexit mood, if you like, and intensify the feeling that there is nothing to learn from foreigners.”
The wave of feeling will help to swamp the awkward facts of the succession. The rehabilitation of Camilla as the Duchess of Cornwall has been a quiet success for the monarchy, but her accession as queen will test how far that has come. Since she married Charles in 2005, Camilla has been officially known as Princess Consort, a formulation that has no historical or legal meaning. (“It’s bullshit,” one former courtier told me, describing it as “a sop to Diana”.) The fiction will end when Elizabeth II dies. Under common law, Camilla will become queen — the title always given to the wives of kings. There is no alternative. “She is queen whatever she is called,” as one scholar put it. “If she is called Princess Consort there is an implication that she is not quite up to it. It’s a problem.” There are plans to clarify this situation before the Queen dies, but King Charles is currently expected to introduce Queen Camilla at his Accession Council on D+1. (Camilla was invited to join the Privy Council last June, so she will be present.) Confirmation of her title will form part of the first tumultuous 24 hours.
Crowds watch naval ratings pulling the gun carriage bearing the coffin of Sir Winston Churchill to St Paul’s Cathedral.
  Crowds watch naval ratings pulling the gun carriage bearing the coffin of Sir Winston Churchill to St Paul’s Cathedral. Photograph: PA
The Commonwealth is the other knot. In 1952, at the last accession, there were only eight members of the new entity taking shape in the outline of the British Empire. The Queen was the head of state in seven of them, and she was proclaimed Head of the Commonwealth to accommodate India’s lone status as a republic. Sixty-five years later, there are 36 republics in the organisation, which the Queen has attended assiduously throughout her reign, and now comprises a third of the world’s population. The problem is that the role is not hereditary, and there is no procedure for choosing the next one. “It’s a complete grey area,” said Philip Murphy, director of the Institute of Commonwealth Studies at the University of London.
For several years, the palace has been discreetly trying to ensure Charles’s succession as head of the bloc, in the absence of any other obvious option. Last October, Julia Gillard, the former prime minister of Australia, revealed that Christopher Geidt, the Queen’s private secretary, had visited her in February 2013 to ask her to support the idea. Canada and New Zealand have since fallen into line, but the title is unlikely to be included in King Charles’s proclamation. Instead it will be part of the discreet international lobbying that takes place as London fills up with diplomats and presidents in the days after the Queen’s death. There will be serious, busy receptions at the palace. “We are not talking about entertaining. But you have to show some form of respect for the fact that they have come,” said one courtier. “Such feasting and commingling, with my father still unburied, seemed to me unfitting and heartless,” wrote Edward VIII in his memoirs. The show must go on. Business will mix with grief.

There will be a thousand final preparations in the nine days before the funeral. Soldiers will walk the processional routes. Prayers will be rehearsed. On D+1, Westminster Hall will be locked, cleaned and its stone floor covered with 1,500 metres of carpet. Candles, their wicks already burnt in, will be brought over from the Abbey. The streets around will be converted into ceremonial spaces. The bollards on the Mall will be removed, and rails put up to protect the hedges. There is space for 7,000 seats on Horse Guards Parade and 1,345 on Carlton House Terrace. In 1952, all the rhododendrons in Parliament Square were pulled up and women were barred from the roof of Admiralty Arch. “Nothing can be done to protect the bulbs,” noted the Ministry of Works. The Queen’s 10 pallbearers will be chosen, and practise carrying their burden out of sight in a barracks somewhere. British royals are buried in lead-lined coffins. Diana’s weighed a quarter of a ton.
The population will slide between sadness and irritability. In 2002, 130 people complained to the BBC about its insensitive coverage of the Queen Mother’s death; another 1,500 complained that Casualty was moved to BBC2. The TV schedules in the days after the Queen’s death will change again. Comedy won’t be taken off the BBC completely, but most satire will. There will be Dad’s Armyreruns, but no Have I Got News For You.
People will be touchy either way. After the death of George VI, in a society much more Christian and deferential than this one, a Mass Observation survey showed that people objected to the endless maudlin music, the forelock-tugging coverage. “Don’t they think of old folk, sick people, invalids?” one 60-year old woman asked. “It’s been terrible for them, all this gloom.” In a bar in Notting Hill, one drinker said, “He’s only shit and soil now like anyone else,” which started a fight. Social media will be a tinderbox. In 1972, the writer Brian Masters estimated that around a third of us have dreamed about the Queen – she stands for authority and our mothers. People who are not expecting to cry will cry.
On D+4, the coffin will move to Westminster Hall, to lie in state for four full days. The procession from Buckingham Palace will be the first great military parade of London Bridge: down the Mall, through Horse Guards, and past the Cenotaph. More or less the same slow march, from St James’s Palace for the Queen Mother in 2002, involved 1,600 personnel and stretched for half a mile. The bands played Beethoven and a gun was fired every minute from Hyde Park. The route is thought to hold around a million people. The plan to get them there is based on the logistics for the London 2012 Olympics.
There may be corgis. In 1910, the mourners for Edward VII were led by his fox terrier, Caesar. His son’s coffin was followed to Wolferton station, at Sandringham, by Jock, a white shooting pony. The procession will reach Westminster Hall on the hour. The timing will be just so. “Big Ben beginning to chime as the wheels come to a stop,” as one broadcaster put it.
Everything will feel fantastically well-ordered and consoling and designed to within a quarter of an inch, because it is
Inside the hall, there will be psalms as the coffin is placed on a catafalque draped in purple. King Charles will be back from his tour of the home nations, to lead the mourners. The orb, the sceptre and the Imperial Crown will be fixed in place, soldiers will stand guard and then the doors opened to the multitude that will have formed outside and will now stream past the Queen for 23 hours a day. For George VI, 305,000 subjects came. The line was four miles long. The palace is expecting half a million for the Queen. There will be a wondrous queue – the ultimate British ritual undertaking, with canteens, police, portable toilets and strangers talking cautiously to one another – stretching down to Vauxhall Bridge and then over the river and back along the Albert Embankment. MPs will skip to the front.
Under the chestnut roof of the hall, everything will feel fantastically well-ordered and consoling and designed to within a quarter of an inch, because it is. A 47-page internal report compiled after George VI’s funeral suggested attaching metal rollers to the catafalque, to smooth the landing of the coffin when it arrives. Four soldiers will stand silent vigil for 20 minutes at a time, with two ready in reserve. The RAF, the Army, the Royal Navy, the Beefeaters, the Gurkhas – everyone will take part. The most senior officer of the four will stand at the foot of the coffin, the most junior at the head. The wreaths on the coffin will be renewed every day. For Churchill’s lying in state in 1965, a replica of the hall was set up in the ballroom of the St Ermin’s hotel nearby, so soldiers could practise their movements before they went on duty. In 1936, the four sons of George V revived The Prince’s Vigil, in which members of the royal family arrive unannounced and stand watch. The Queen’s children and grandchildren – including women for the first time – will do the same.
Before dawn on D+9, the day of the funeral, in the silent hall, the jewels will be taken off the coffin and cleaned. In 1952, it took three jewellers almost two hours to remove all the dust. (The Star of Africa, on the royal sceptre, is the second-largest cut diamond in the world.) Most of the country will be waking to a day off. Shops will close, or go to bank holiday hours. Some will display pictures of the Queen in their windows. The stock market will not open. The night before, there will have been church services in towns across the UK. There are plans to open football stadiums for memorial services if necessary.
At 9am, Big Ben will strike. The bell’s hammer will then be covered with a leather pad seven-sixteenths of an inch thick, and it will ring out in muffled tones. The distance from Westminster Hall to the Abbey is only a few hundred metres. The occasion will feel familiar, even though it is new: the Queen will be the first British monarch to have her funeral in the Abbey since 1760. The 2,000 guests will be sitting inside. Television cameras, in hides made of painted bricks, will search for the images that we will remember. In 1965, the dockers dipped their cranes for Churchill. In 1997, it was the word “Mummy” on the flowers for Diana from her sons.
When the coffin reaches the abbey doors, at 11 o’clock, the country will fall silent. The clatter will still. Train stations will cease announcements. Buses will stop and drivers will get out at the side of the road. In 1952, at the same moment, all of the passengers on a flight from London to New York rose from their seats and stood, 18,000 feet above Canada, and bowed their heads.
Back then, the stakes were clearer, or at least they seemed that way. A stammering king had been part of the embattled British way of life that had survived an existential war. The wreath that Churchill laid said: “For Gallantry.” The BBC commentator in 1952, the man who deciphered the rubies and the rituals for the nation, was Richard Dimbleby, the first British reporter to enter Bergen-Belsen and convey its horrors, seven years before. “How true tonight that statement spoken by an unknown man of his beloved father,” murmured Dimbleby, describing the lying in state to millions. “The sunset of his death tinged the whole world’s sky.”
The trumpets and the ancientness were proof of our survival; and the king’s young daughter would rule the peace. “These royal ceremonies represented decency, tradition, and public duty, in contradiction to the ghastliness of Nazism,” as one historian told me. The monarchy had traded power for theatre, and in the aftermath of war, the illusion became more powerful than anyone could have imagined. “It was restorative,” Jonathan Dimbleby, Richard’s son and biographer, told me.
His brother, David, is likely to be behind the BBC microphone this time. The question will be what the bells and the emblems and the heralds represent now. At what point does the pomp of an imperial monarchy become ridiculous amid the circumstances of a diminished nation? “The worry,” a historian said, “is that it is just circus animals.”
If the monarchy exists as theatre, then this doubt is the part of the drama. Can they still pull it off? Knowing everything that we know in 2017, how can it possibly hold that a single person might contain the soul of a nation? The point of the monarchy is not to answer such questions. It is to continue. “What a lot of our life we spend in acting,” the Queen Mother used to say.
Inside the Abbey, the archbishop will speak. During prayers, the broadcasters will refrain from showing royal faces. When the coffin emerges again, the pallbearers will place it on the green gun carriage that was used for the Queen’s father, and his father and his father’s father, and 138 junior sailors will drop their heads to their chests and pull. The tradition of being hauled by the Royal Navy began in 1901 when Victoria’s funeral horses, all white, threatened to bolt at Windsor Station and a waiting contingent of ratings stepped in to pull the coffin instead.
The procession will swing on to the Mall. In 1952, the RAF was grounded out of respect for King George VI. In 2002, at 12.45pm, a Lancaster bomber and two Spitfires flew over the cortege for his wife and dipped their wings. The crowds will be deep for the Queen. She will get everything. From Hyde Park Corner, the hearse will go 23 miles by road to Windsor Castle, which claims the bodies of British sovereigns. The royal household will be waiting for her, standing on the grass. Then the cloister gates will be closed and cameras will stop broadcasting. Inside the chapel, the lift to the royal vault will descend, and King Charles will drop a handful of red earth from a silver bowl.
 This article was amended on 16 March 2017 to correct some minor errors including the fact that three of the Queen’s last four prime ministers, not the last three, were born after her accession – Blair, Cameron and May; that the Star of Africa on the royal sceptre is not the largest diamond in the world, but the second-largest cut diamond; and that the word “son’s” was originally missing from the second sentence in this passage: “In 1910, the mourners for Edward VII were led by his fox terrier, Caesar. His son’s coffin was followed to Wolferton station, at Sandringham, by Jock, a white shooting pony.”

'Kijkt de Europese Unie vandaag in de spiegel die Donald Trump ons voorhoudt?'

Wies De Graeve van Amnesty International staat stil bij de 'verjaardag' van de Europese 'oplossing' van het vluchtelingenvraagstuk: de deal die de Europese Unie sloot met Turkije.
'Kijkt de Europese Unie vandaag in de spiegel die Donald Trump ons voorhoudt?'
Vluchtelingen in Libië © REUTERS
Velen onder ons krijgen de ontzetting over Donald Trump nauwelijks verwoord. Zijn moslimban, zijn muur, zijn gesloten grenzen,... het is een schande. Wie oprecht in de Europese spiegel kijkt ziet echter een ongemakkelijke waarheid. Al veel eerder - toen 'President Trump' nog eerder een gimmick dan een reële optie was - maakte de Europese Unie soortgelijke keuzes.
Een jaar geleden werd de EU-Turkije-deal beklonken. Zowat het sluitstuk van de Europese 'oplossing' van het vluchtelingenvraagstuk. Eerst werden de grenzen hermetisch gesloten met extra controles, gewapende grenswachten, en jawel, potige grenshekken. Toegegeven, de vluchtelingen moesten er niet voor betalen. Met de deal werd de buitengrens van de EU daarna uitbesteed aan Turkije tegen een aanzienlijke prijs. In ruil voor de belofte van 6 miljard euro hielden de Turken vluchtelingen die wilden inschepen naar Griekenland tegen. Aan de andere kant van Turkije ging de grens voor nieuwe Syrische vluchtelingen dicht. Het sluiten van de grenzen trok als een rimpeling van Wenen en Boedapest, over Mytilini tot Kilis.
DELEN
'Kijkt de Europese Unie vandaag in de spiegel die Donald Trump ons voorhoudt?'
Ondanks de titel 'anti-verdrinkingsplan' ging deze aanpak van de vluchtelingenstroom nooit over de bescherming van mensen op de loop voor oorlog en terreur. De graadmeter voor succes was een zo laag mogelijk aantal vluchtelingen, een zo klein mogelijk aandeel in de wereldwijde verantwoordelijkheid om mensen op de vlucht te beschermen. De EU vaardigde in feite een soort vluchtelingenban uit avant la lettre.
Eén jaar EU-Turkije-deal is dan ook een trieste verjaardag. Voor wie het wil zien, klinkt de Europese veroordeling van Trumps retoriek en beleidsplannen erg hol. Tot verbijstering van menig EU-leider doet Trump wat hij zegt en zegt hij wat hij doet. In Europa zijn het al normen en waarden die de klok slaan, maar het gevoerde beleid toont iets anders. De deuren gaan dicht en de ladders worden opgetrokken. Het engagement van de VS om vluchtelingen te hervestigen wil Trump terugdraaien van 110.000 naar 50.000. Onaanvaardbaar gezien de grote noden, maar de EU-lidstaten slagen er samen niet eens in om 60.000 vluchtelingen die al bijna twee jaar vast zitten in Griekenland deftig op te vangen.
DELEN
'We moeten legale en veilige routes openen om meer kwetsbare vluchtelingen op te vangen, in plaats van een willekeurig systeem van enkele honderden humanitaire visa.'
Voor alle duidelijkheid: het is geen zwart-wit keuze tussen gesloten en open grenzen. Het is wel een kwestie van het respecteren van het asielrecht, een hoeksteen van het internationaal recht. Er zijn internationale regels en afspraken die gemaakt zijn voor crisissen als deze. De beste vluchtelingendeal die er is, bestaat al: het Vluchtelingenverdrag. Die deal is heus niet gemaakt door enkele wereldvreemde activisten, maar door politici en diplomaten die de donkerste bladzijden uit de wereldgeschiedenis achter de rug hadden.
86% van de vluchtelingen wereldwijd wordt al in ontwikkelingslanden opgevangen, en toch schuift Europa haar verantwoordelijkheid verder af, ondanks de retoriek over normen en waarden. Hoe het wel zou moeten is duidelijk, maar het vergt politieke moed en wil om een mensenrechtenperspectief ook in de praktijk om te zetten. We moeten legale en veilige routes openen om meer kwetsbare vluchtelingen op te vangen, in plaats van een willekeurig systeem van enkele honderden humanitaire visa. Laat ons eindelijk werk maken van de relocatie van die vele duizenden vluchtelingen die in erbarmelijke omstandigheden vast zitten op de Griekse eilanden. Werk een gezamenlijk Europees asielsysteem uit dat de toets met het internationaal recht doorstaat. Wees solidair en deel verantwoordelijkheid. Zet woorden om in daden.

Geen gebrek aan symbolische data

Helaas lijkt de EU-aanpak die van Trump stilaan te overtreffen. Hongarije bouwt aan zijn grens een nog potiger hek, dat ondertussen veel weg heeft van een muur. Geen Europese haan die er naar kraait. De deal met Turkije wordt niet bijgestuurd, maar als model gebruikt om ook bij andere landen de Europese grensbewaking af te kopen. Hoe vluchtelingen er aan toe zijn in die landen is van geen tel. Libië is blijkbaar een aanvaardbare partner, hoewel de mishandeling van vluchtelingen er ruim gedocumenteerd is. Sudan wordt high tech grensbewaking beloofd, waarmee de EU notoire mensenrechtenschenders extra instrumenten in handen zou geven. Uiteraard gaan EU-leiders achteraf over elkaar heen struikelen om die schendingen zwaar te veroordelen.
Het is hoog tijd dat de EU in de spiegel kijkt die Trump ons voorhoudt. Hoewel de EU de voorbije decennia stap voor stap, met vallen en opstaan, gegroeid is als globale baken voor mensenrechten, doet de vluchtelingencrisis de maskers afvallen. Nu 'viert' de EU-Turkije-deal zijn eerste verjaardag, maar dit jaar wordt de EU ook zestig. En volgend jaar wordt de Universele Verklaring van de Rechten van de Mens zeventig. Symbolische data genoeg om alsnog bij te sturen en veel beter te doen.
Wies De Graeve is directeur Amnesty International Vlaanderen

Zoals U Edehoogachtbare Voorzitters Staatsraden van de Raad van State kunt lezen dat President D Trump en First Lady M Trump de eurozone een spiegel voorhouden en dit niet voor Het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden bedoelt is omdat het Land Nederland NIET bestaat volgens de medewerkers van de bankensector en de rechtbanken + medewerkers van jeugdzorg.
Omdat deze medewerkers een professioneel beroep hebben en men ernstig lijdt aan de ziekte van cotard of cotardwaan die gebaseerd is op dementie en ik R.J.M Zwijnenberg namens KONING JEZUS DE ZOON VAN GOD ALMACHTIG die alles zal genezen en de wijsheid in pacht heeft dit ziektebeeld beschrijven zodat alles zal genezen en gezondheid bevorderd en bewerkstelligt zal worden.
Vanwege neurologische aandoening die terug te vinden is in de maatschappij en Jules Cotard waardoor de Hopital de la Salpetriere die verbonden zijn aan de Universiteit van Pierre en Marie Curie die in opdracht van Koning Lodewijk XIV werd gebouwd.
Dit gebouw werd eerst gebruikt voor de produktie van buskruit en na enige jaren als opvangcentrum voor geestelijk gestoorde vrouwen en prostituees.
Mannen werden in een andere instelling behandeld.
In de tweede helft van de 19de eeuw kwam dit ziekenhuis tot bloei vanwege de Jean Martin Charcot en werd het Salpetrier het europese centrum voor onderzoeken naar hysterie en dissociatieve aandoeningen die toepassing van hypnose onderzocht en amyotrofe laterale sclerose en kanker.
Dr Tulio Simoncini en....'Kanker is een Schimmel' die geneesbaar is want dit is beschreven in ''The Truth About Cancer: A Global Quest''.
Door de invoer van de euro in 2002 en dit is afgeleid door de samensmelting van een aantal afzonderlijke militaire conflicten zoals in de tweede wereldoorlog is een derde wereldoorlog gerealiseerd en dit is af te leiden uit de Categorie: Operatie tijdens de Tweede Wereldoorlog en door Fall Weiss en in de aflevering van Brandpunt op dinsdag 14-03-2017 omstreeks 21.00 uur is uitgezonden en Polen niet in staat is om vluchtelingen op te vangen omdat men niet eens voor eigen bevolking kan zorg dragen op aan de zorgplicht te voldoen.
Omdat het eurosysteem is gebaseerd op frontotemporale dementie:

Frontotemporale dementie

Frontotemporale dementie
Coderingen
ICD-9331.19
Portaal  Portaalicoon  Geneeskunde
Frontotemporale dementie[1] is een hersenstoornis die geassocieerd is met degeneratie van de frontale en temporale gebieden in de hersenen.
Het tast de functies aan van de frontale schors en soms ook van de temporale schors. De symptomen zijn veranderingen in gedrag en persoonlijkheid en veranderingen in executieve functies. De gedragssymptomen zijnapathie en verlies aan controle en/of remmingen.
Natuurlijk is apathie van toepassing bij medewerkers van Justitie en Politie, medewerkers van de bankensector en medewerkers van Monsanto (Bayer) die de wereldbevolking ziek houden.
Ik R.J.M Zwijnenberg dien per ommegaande de motie in bij U Edelhoogachtbare Voorzitters Staatsraden van de Raad van State om deze geestelijke strijdvoering verder te strijden op de abiogenese van het Christendom en dit zal starten op 07-05-2017 om 15.00 uur zodat de Edelachtbare Rechter en de Edelachtbare Raadsheer waardoor de avolitie om de ten uitvoerlegging van de derde wereldoorlog te stoppen en anhedonie uit te sluiten waardoor de motie volgens de beraadslaging voldoende is onderbouwd om toegewezen te worden.
U Edelhoogachtbare Voorzitters Staatsraden van de Raad van State kan dit niet op aangeleerde hulpeloosheid nietig verklaren want het behaviorisme heeft principes die de denkhouding van universele twijfel waarbij men uitgaat van betrouwbare kennis en dit vandaag de dag niet aan de orde van de dag is want er is teveel gesjoemeld met de verkiezingsuitslagen en de Hypothese is te onbetrouwbaar dat de V.V.D de grootste partij is maar natuurlijk zijn de medewerkers van Monsanto (Bayer) die ook de databank verkiezingsuitslagen beheren waarvan de Nederlanders die volgens de Nederlandse etniciteit geen vertrouwen hebben in de Kroon want de V.V.D staat nergens geregistreerd zodat het ontbrekende inspreekrecht van de burger wordt uitgesloten.
De keisraad heeft hierdoor vrij spel en is een adviesorgaan van de regering die de verkiezingsfraude bewerkstelligt omdat hier rechters, raadsheren, artsen, psychologen enz enz in zitten die de derde wereldoorlogen bekrachtigen volgens het Ministerie van Defensie en het Ministerie van Landbouw waar milieu-arts Henk Jans de invloedrijke brabander op gebied van publieke gezondheid die xen tari larven doormiddel van bestrijdingsmiddelen die schadelijk zijn voor de burgers van de Europese Unie die kanker heeft veroorzakt en kankermedicijn dreigt onbetaalbaar te worden welke het meest schadelijk is voor vluchtelingen en asielzoekers die in eigen land beter genezen omdat men in land van herkomst vanwege verandering van aerosol in de Europese Unie geen kans heeft op The Truth About Cancer en de wereldgezondheidsorganisatie deze informatie niet op waarheid baseerd.
Dit is natuurlijk af te leiden aan het corrupte Japanse rechtssysteem en U Edelhoogachtbare Voorzitters Staatsraden van de Raad van State wel cacao in de melk te brokkelen heeft maar eigen volk laat kreperen omdat er 6% B.T.W in Nederland op geneesmiddelen laat betalen en ik R.J.M Zwijnenberg me wel afvraag hoe kunt U Edelhoogachtbare de Staatsburgers die verblijven in Nederland die als land niet meer bestaat belastingen heffen en gevangenissen open laat waar wij ook nog eens belastingen voor betalen en U Edelhoogachtbare Voorzitters Staatsraden van de Raad van State de belastingdienst hier niet voor verantwoordelijk/aansprakelijk stelt om het Juridisch Ethisch Nederlandse Rechtssysteem gebaseerd op een Bindende Constitutionele Monarchie: 
bijbelteksten

Edelhoogachtbare Voorzitters Staatsraden van de Raad van State waarom zijn andere geloofsstromingen in Nederland wel goed gevonden maar het Christendom NIET!!!
De belastingdienst Nederland bestaat niet en daarom gaan al onze belastinggelden naar het buitenland waardoor de wet kinderopvang en kwaliteitseisen peuterspeelzalen voor de volgende generatie jeugdzorg niet meer van toepassing zal zijn.
Dit wordt gesubsidieerd door belastinggelden en is uitkeringsfraude van de V.V.D.
Minister-President M Rutte die miljarden euro' s naar Turkije heeft gesluist zolang de EU-gesprekken lopen en natuurlijk zwijggelden zijn betaald om het Demmink-Tribunaal in de doofpot te houden anders zou Dhr Hiddema wel op het Ministerie van Veiligheid en Justitie als minister zijn functie kunnen betreden; hierdoor zou een rechtsgeldige rechtspraak.nl worden bewerkstelligt.
De gevangenissen in Het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden zijn dus van Turkije en de United States of America wat inhoud dat de Turkse gevangenen naar Turkije terug kunnen want dat is nog wel een Land en alle Marokanen kunnen naar The United States of America want President D Trump en First Lady Miss M Trump maken korte metten in The States met criminele activiteiten en dan kan Het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden opnieuw worden gerealiseerd door op de Ministeries die beschreven staan in de lijst van Ministeries en hier Christenen in het bestuur moeten regeren omdat KONING JEZUS DE ZOON VAN GOD ALMACHTIG die geen zonde had en uit de maagd maria is geboren wat onbevlekt is en daarom voor onze zonden kon sterven maar U Edelhoogachtbare Voorzitters Staatsraden van de Raad van State natuurlijk niet wil buigen voor KONING JEZUS DE ZOON VAN GOD ALMACHTIG en hier zelf de negatieve gevolgen van zal ondervinden bij Het Koninklijk Huis want Koning W.A Van Oranje Nassau Bilderberg en Koningin M Van Oranje Nassau Bilderberg die zeggen dat ze geloven in KONING JEZUS DE ZOON VAN GOD ALMACHTIG zullen aantoonbaar de Christelijke geloofsstroming aan de Nederlandse Staatsburgers volgens de communicatie van en voorlichting over het Koninklijk Huis en de Leden van het Koninklijk Huis het goede voorbeeld moeten geven aan de Nederlandse Staatsburgers en de goede gezonde geest door Het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden laten waaien waardoor de Koninklijke Familie die het Nederlandse volk heeft verloochent omdat Prinses Christina is verwekt bij een prostituee wat door Ipsos is gepubliceerd die ook de telling van de verkiezingen heeft gepubliceerd en de media is van het Koninklijk Huis.
Bovendien heeft het Nederlandse Koninklijk Huis een heleboel schandalige duistere praktijken op hun naam want waarom stond de nooit opgeloste zaak schadwald volgens Justitie onder kwaad gesternte?
Juist heel goed Edelhoogachtbare Voorzitters Staatsraden van de Raad van State omdat hier topambtenaren in pedonetwerken en Nederlandse politici en de bilderberggroep vol van samenzweringen tegen democratie bewerkstelligen en de WAARHEID in de doofpot houden.
Hierbij verwijs ik R.J.M Zwijnenberg naar de inhoud van de brief aan de burgemeester van Hasselt pagina 16 die op 04 Mei 2002 ontvangen zou moeten zijn door het Paarse kabinet.
Omdat toen Edelhoogachtbare Voorzitters Staatsraden van de Raad van State de politiek het Openbaar Ministerie en de rechterlijke macht corrupt is gemaakt en het gehele land dus de gehele Europese Unie is vergiftigt met uiterst giftige kankerverwekkende stoffen met misbruik van gemeenschapsgeld (subsidie) onder de dekmantel ecologisch, milieuvriendelijk, biomassa, groene stroom, duurzaam, CO2-reductie, KOMO-keur, mlieubeton, secundaire brandstof, hergebruik, Rio de Janeiro protocol en Kyoto-protocol

Rio Protocol

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Rio Protocol
Protocolo de Río.jpg
The signing of the Rio Protocol
Typebilateral treaty
Signed29 January 1942
LocationRio de Janeiro cityRio de JaneiroBrazil
Original
signatories
Ecuador
Peru
RatifiersEcuador
Peru
The Protocol of Peace, Friendship, and Boundaries between Peru and Ecuador, or Rio Protocol for short, was an international agreement signed in Rio de JaneiroBrazil, on January 29, 1942, by the foreign ministers of Peru andEcuador, with the participation of the United States, Brazil, Chile, and Argentina as guarantors. The Protocol was intended to finally resolve the long-running territorial dispute between the two countries, and brought about the official end of the Ecuadorian–Peruvian War of 1941-1942. Nevertheless, the Protocol was incomplete, and war broke out between Peru and Ecuador twice more, in 1981 and in 1995, before the signing of the Itamaraty Peace Declaration which brought final resolution to the dispute.

History[edit]

In May 1941, as tensions at the Ecuadorian-Peruvian border mounted and war was imminent, the governments of the United States, Brazil, and Argentina offered their services in aiding in the mediation of the dispute. Their efforts failed to prevent the outbreak of hostilities on July 23, 1941, but the diplomatic intervention led to a definitive cease-fire being put into place on July 31. Despite this, limited skirmishes continued to occur through the months of August and September in the Ecuadorian provinces of El Oro and Loja, as well as in the Amazonian lands. Ecuador accused Peru of continuing its advances into the highland province of Azuay.[citation needed]
On October 2, with military observers from the three mediating countries serving as witnesses, Ecuador and Peru signed the Talara Accord, which created a demilitarized zone inside the provinces of El Oro and Loja, pending the signing of a definitive peace treaty. Diplomatic efforts continued, with the mediating countries being joined by Chile.
With its recent entry into World War II, the United States was eager to present a united American continent.[citation needed]At the third Pan-American Summit, held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, the United States encouraged a settlement between the two countries.[citation needed]
On January 29, 1942, on the final day of the third Pan-American Summit, held in Rio de Janeiro, the foreign ministers of Ecuador and Peru, Julio Tobar Donoso and Alfredo Solf y Muro, signed a "Protocol of Peace, Friendship, and Boundaries", known as the Rio de Janeiro Protocol. The observers from the United States, Brazil, Argentina, and Chile co-signed the document, becoming "Guarantors of the Protocol".[1] The Rio Protocol was subsequently ratified by each country's congress on February 26, 1942.
By the terms of the Protocol, Ecuador agreed to withdraw its long-standing claim for rights to direct land access to the Marañon and Amazon rivers; Peru agreed to withdraw Peruvian military forces from Ecuadorian territory. An area of 200,000 km2 (77,000 sq mi) of hitherto disputed territory in the Maynas region of the Amazonian basin was awarded to Peru, which had been established to be the de facto possessor of the land since the end of the 19th century. The status quo line defined in the 1936 Lima Accord was used as the basis for the definitive border line; the previous border recognized current possessions, but not sovereignty. Relative to the 1936 line, Ecuador ceded 18,552 km² of previously possessed territory to Peru, while Peru ceded 5,072 km² of previously possessed territory to Ecuador.[2]
During the 1960s, the Ecuadorian government alleged that the Protocol was invalid, because it had been signed under coercion while foreign troops were stationed on Ecuadorian soil.[citation needed] This stance was modified by subsequent governments, but was never officially reverted until the resolution of the dispute in 1995.[citation needed]
The intended goal of the Rio Protocol was not fulfilled until the signing of the Itamaraty Peace Declaration in 1995. Between the signing of the two treaties, thePaquisha Incident and the Cenepa War rekindled the dispute.

Text[edit]

Edit-copy purple-wikis.svg
This section is a candidate to be copied to Wikisource.
If the section can be edited into encyclopedic content, rather than merely a copy of the source text, please do so and remove this message. Otherwise, you can help by formatting it per the Wikisource guidelines in preparation for the duplication.
( English Translation )
PROTOCOL OF PEACE, FRIENDSHIP, AND BOUNDARIES BETWEEN PERU AND ECUADOR
The Governments of Peru and Ecuador, desiring to settle the boundary dispute which, over a long period of time, has separated them, and taking into consideration the offer that was made to them by the Governments of the United States of America, of the Argentine Republic, of the United States of Brazil, and of Chile, of their friendly services to seek a prompt and honorable solution to the program, and moved by the American spirit that prevails in the Third Consultative Meeting of the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the American Republics, have resolved to conclude a protocol of peace, friendship, and boundaries in the presence of the representatives of those four friendly Governments. To this end, the following plenipotentiaries take part:
For the Republic of Peru, Doctor Alfredo Solf y Muro, Minister of Foreign Affairs; and
For the Republic of Ecuador, Doctor Julio Tobar Donoso, Minister of Foreign Affairs;
Who, after having exhibited the respective full powers of the parties, and having found them in good and due form, agree to the signing of the following protocol:
ARTICLE I
The Governments of Peru and Ecuador solemnly affirm their resolute intention of maintaining between the two peoples relations of peace and friendship, of understanding and good faith and of abstaining, the one with respect to the other, from any action capable of disturbing such relations.
ARTICLE II
The Government of Peru shall, within a period of 15 days from this date, withdraw its military forces to the line described in article VIII of this protocol.
ARTICLE III
The United States of America, Argentina, Brazil, and Chile shall cooperate, by means of military observers, in order to adjust to circumstances this evacuation and retirement of troops, according to the terms of the preceding article.
ARTICLE IV
The military forces of the two countries shall remain in their new positions until the definitive demarcation of the frontier line. Until then, Ecuador shall have only civil jurisdiction in the zones evacuated by Peru, which remain in the same status as the demilitarized zone of the Talara Act.
ARTICLE V
The activity of the United States, Argentina, Brazil, and Chile shall continue until the definitive demarcation of frontiers between Peru and Ecuador has been completed, this protocol and the execution thereof being under the guaranty of the four countries mentioned at the beginning of this article.
ARTICLE VI
Ecuador shall enjoy, for purposes of navigation on the Amazon and its northern tributaries, the same concessions that Brazil and Colombia enjoy, in addition to those that may be agreed upon in a Treaty of Commerce and Navigation designed to facilitate free and untaxed navigation on the aforesaid rivers.
ARTICLE VII
Any doubt or disagreement that may arise in the execution of this protocol shall be settled by the parties concerned, with the assistance of the representatives of the United States, Argentina, Brazil, and Chile, in the shortest possible time.
ARTICLE VIII
The boundary line shall follow the points named below:
A)-In the west:
The mouth of the Capones in the ocean;
The Zarumilla River and the Balsamal or Lajas Quebrada;
The Puyango or Tumbes River to the Quebrada de Cazaderos;
Cazaderos;
The Quebrada de Pilares y del Alamor to the Chira River;
The Chira River, upstream;
The Macará, Calvas, and Espíndola Rivers, upstream, to the sources of the last mentioned in the Nudo de Sabanillas;
From the Nudo de Sabanillas to the Canchis River;
Along the whole course of the Canchis River, downstream;
The Chinchipe River, downstream, to the point at which it receives the San Francisco River.

B)-In the east:
From the Quebrada de San Francisco, the watershed between the Zamora and Santiago Rivers, to the confluence of the Santiago River with the Yaupi;
A line to the outlet of the Bobonaza into the Pastaza. The confluence of the Conambo River with the Pintoyacu in the Tigre River;
Outlet of the Cononaco into the Curaray, downstream, to Bellavista;
A line to the outlet of the Yasuní into the Napo River. Along the Napo, downstream, to the mouth of the Aguarico;
Along the latter, upstream, to the confluence of the Lagartococha or Zancudo River with the Aguarico;
The Lagartococha or Zancudo River, upstream, to its sources and from there a straight line meeting the Güepí River and along this river to its outlet into the Putumayo, and along the Putumayo upstream to the boundary of Ecuador and Colombia
ARTICLE IX
It is understood that the line above described shall be accepted by Peru and Ecuador for the demarcation of the boundary between the two countries, by technical experts, on the grounds. The parties may, however, when the line is being laid out on the ground, grant such reciprocal concessions as they may consider advisable in order to adjust the aforesaid line to geographical realities. These rectifications shall be made with the collaboration of the representatives of the United States of America, the Argentine Republic, Brazil, and Chile.
The Governments of Peru and Ecuador shall submit this protocol to their respective Congresses and the corresponding approval is to be obtained within a period of not more than 30 days.
In witness thereof, the plenipotentiaries mentioned above sign and seal the present protocol, in two copies, in Spanish, in the city of Rio de Janeiro, at one o’clock, the twenty-ninth day of January, of the year nineteen hundred and forty-two, under the auspices of His Excellency the President of Brazil and in the presence of the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the Argentine Republic, Brazil, and Chile and of the Under Secretary of State of the United States of America.
(SIGNED ALSO BY REPRESENTATIVES OF THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ARGENTINA, BRAZIL, AND CHILE)
Signed at Rio de Janeiro, January 29, 1942.
Approved by the Congress of Ecuador, February 26, 1942.
Approved by the Congress of Peru, February 26, 1942.
(L.S.) Alfredo Solf y Muro
(L.S.) J. Tobar Donoso
Signed) Sumner Welles
Signed) E. Ruiz Guiñazú
Signed) Juan B. Rossetti
Signed) Oswaldo Aranha

References[edit]

  1. Jump up^ http://www.usip.org/pubs/peaceworks/pwks27/appndx1_27.html
  2. Jump up^ Julio Tobar Donoso, La Invasión Peruana y el Protocolo de Rio. Antecedentes y Explicación Histórica. Quito, Banco Central del Ecuador, 1982 (1st Ed. 1945). P. 462.

Governments first actively addressed the issues of global environmental needs when they gathered in Stockholm in 1972 to take part in the UN Conference on Human Environment. The focus of the conference was international cooperation regarding the problems the Earth’s environment was facing.
The next UN Conference on Environment and Development took Place in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, 20 years after Stockholm. This time, as the theme of the conference suggests, the participating countries focused on a broader issue, namely, the relationship between environmental trends and development at the national and international levels.
The Rio Convention, also known as the “Earth Summit” produced the Rio Declaration and Agenda 21 (a plan of action for the UN organizations, Governments, and Major Groups in areas where human activities have a negative impact on the environment) and also led to agreement on two other conventions which became open for signature – the Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC) and Biological Diversity, both legally binding.

I consider the FCCC the most important of the products of the Rio Convention in terms of leading to the preparation of the Kyoto Protocol.The FCCC was signed by 154 countries in 1992. Its key points were:
1) stabilization of the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, while also ensuring food production is not put under threat, and allowing for economic development to proceed.
2) developed countries should take the initiative in reducing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere
3) no specific greenhouse-gas-reduction aims, time frames, or penalties for violators were agreed on
4) the participating countries decided on meeting at COPs (Conferences of the Parties) on a regular basis to work on the implementation of the Convention’s objectives.
After meeting for 2 COPs in Berlin and Geneva, eventually on the third COP held in Kyoto, Japan in 1997 the member countries prepared the Kyoto Protocol.
The Kyoto Protocol decided upon:
1) emission-reduction targets of greenhouse gases for each of the member countries
2) a greenhouse gas emission-trading program
3) holding future meetings to set penalties for violators of the established targets and regulation rules of the emission-trading program

In 2001, George W. Bush was elected president of the USA. Unlike his predecessor, President Clinton, President Bush did not support the Protocol and announced that the United States withdraws the possibility of ratifying it. This act put into question the whole concept of addressing the issues of climate change on a global level. Furthermore, in order for the Protocol t be put into action it had to be ratified by at least 55 nations of the UN Framework Convention, with developed countries representing a total of 55% of the greenhouse gas emissions in 1990. With US holding a 36% portion of this share, a ratification seemed a difficult task.

The Kyoto Protocol finally came into effect on February 16, 2005, 7 years after it was first negotiated, when the goal of getting countries responsible for a total of 55% of the global emissions was achieved with the signature of Russia ratifying the document
The Kyoto Protocol is finally put into action


Dit had Pim Fortyun allemaal mee willen nemen in de verkiezingen maar omdat Pim Fortyun door de Kroon is vermoord en dit in het boek die geschreven is door actrice Ine Veen: Moord namens 'de kroon' waarin ook geschreven staat dat de daadwerkelijke moordenaar Abu Fatah is en deze Libanees in het leger zat anders zou dit niet direct met 1 schot raak zijn.
Natuurlijk moest Justitie een slachtoffer hebben en heeft Volkert van der Graaf dit met zijn leven moeten bezuren omdat hij een oude bekende was van Justitie en vanaf toen ook Justitiele dwaling of rechterlijke dwaling eenzijdig van het Openbaar Ministerie iemand vervolgt op wie geen schuld rust en de daadwerkelijke dader vrij uit gaat en medewerkers van politie en  justitie zelf de meeste aangiften verzaken vanwege wanbedrijven omdat iedereen tot aan de Procureur des Konings in het complot zit.
Dit alles is te herzien in de Categorie: Geschiedenis van de Lage landen wat in werkelijkheid de geschiedenis van Nederland is.
Edelhoogachtbare Voorzitters Staatsraden van de Raad van State wat gaat U met deze informatie doen want ik R.J.M Zwijnenberg publiceer alles op 10-08-2017 om 07.00 op Ranny' s blog omdat Nederland weer Het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden moet worden en de Nederlandse Identiteit weer moet herleven!!!
Dit zal ook in The Observer wat in de volksmond The Guardian wordt genoemd moeten worden gepubliceerd.
Tevens hebben we dan nog steeds de zaak CHIPSHOL de stukken grond rondom luchthaven Schiphol want dit is aantoonbaar bewijs dat schipholwanbeleid te maken heeft met de RECHTSPRAAK.NL omdat dossier Westenberg  van leugens, list en bedrog aan elkaar hangt omdat dit is gebaseerd op meineed anders was het arrest Hugo Smit tegen Hans Westenberg wel gegrond/ontvankelijk verklaard en artikel 12 volgens het wetboek van strafrecht in acht genomen en natuurlijk is dit ook weer een complot van Monsanto wat voorheen Bayer werd genoemd.
JD Report heeft genoeg publicaties over misstanden over Edelachtbare Rechters, Edelachtbare Raadsheren en natuurlijk de farmaceutische industrie hoe Europese Staatsburgers worden bedonderd door politici als Camiel Eurlings en Mark Rutte.
De agenda van Bayer en Monsanto zijn in samenwerking met politie en Justitie bewerkstelligt wat na 10-08-2017 als een kaartenpakhuis in elkaar stort en dit een domino-effect heeft op de Europese Unie Zone waardoor alles op het Christendom op Openbaringen bewerkstelligt wordt en iedereen die beweerd dat dit op de illusie van Venetie gebaseerd is zal door eigen rechtssysteem in de val lopen en levenslang in GITMO opgesloten worden omdat tijd niet bestaat en medewerkers van de bankensector Nederland hetzelfde laken een pak ontvangen omdat ik R.J.M Zwijnenberg voor ''gek'' werd uitgemaakt en niet 1 of andere achterlijke gladiool en anders dan zou ABN-AMRO niet als beste bank kunnen worden betiteld die wel de meeste medici als klant heeft en ING is de bank voor de daklozen!!!
Edelhoogachtbare Voorzitters Staatsraden van de Raad van State glucose-6-fosfaatdehydrogenasedeficientie (niercarcinoom) wat de zwakste schakel is in de bankensector is te genezen met  Flaraxin.
FLARAXIN is tevens goed voor het bloed omdat in de categorie:Bloed- of immuunaandoening beschreven is dat beenmergdepressie of aplatische anemie kortweg AA een vorm is van bloedarmoede omdat de Medewerkers van Monsanto en Bayer Europese Unie Staatsburgers ziek houden; volgens de agenda van de duistere praktijken van de NWO, VRIJMETSELARIJ, BILDERBERGGROEP, ILLUMINATIE EN SCIENTOLOGY!!!
U Edelhoogachtbare Voorzitters Staatsraden van de Raad van State maakt deel uit van deze Satanische groeperingen want als dit niet het geval zou zijn zouden klokkenluiders (melders van misstanden) niet vervolgd worden!!!
Dit is een teken dat sinds de invoer van de euro iedere EU-lidstaat zijn eigen wet-en regelgeving handhaaft zoals elke staat in The United States dit ook doet alleen is The United States voor buitenlanders veel moeilijker om binnen te komen omdat men een VISUM nodig heeft en dit in Het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden niet kan omdat Nederland geen land is en Het Koninklijk Huis geen recht heeft op Koninklijke titels mits W.A van Oranje Nassau Jonkheer van Amsberg de gevangenissen sluit en de EU-VERDRAGEN ontbind zodat het Nederlandse volk inspraak heeft en de Nederlandse Identiteit terug geeft aan de Nederlanders.
Dit zal bewerkstelligt moeten worden door een reine geest gebaseerd op het CHRISTENDOM omdat KONING JEZUS DE ZOON VAN GOD ALMACHTIG de dood heeft overwonnen en de agenda van de NWO, Bilderberggroep enz wordt vernietigt omdat alles pedosexuelen en pedosatanisten in GITMO zitten en zijn berecht volgens het Amerikaans Rechtssysteem die rechtsgeldig is en The United States kent ook de doodstraf en deze zal ten uitvoer worden gelegd voor aanhangers van de vrijmetselarij omdat deze sekte Majesteitschennis heeft bewerkstelligt en pedosexualiteit en pedosatanisme in het Rechtssysteem heeft bewerkstelligt + frauderen met belastinggelden en gedetineerden die in NL vast zitten zijn dus ten onrechte veroordeeld en de buitenlanders die in de NL gevangenissen zitten kunnen terug naar eigen land zolang Het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden een rifrepubliek is en dit is te danken aan de NSB=Nationaal Socialistische Beweging wat is vermeld op Nederland kind website en natuurlijk is Prinses Beatrix hier de spil in die bevriend was met J Demmink vanuit Leiden.
J Demmink die zijn pensioen ontvangt vanuit The United States zal nog voor 18-08-2017 dit jaar worden opgepakt en liniea recta naar GITMO wordt afgevoerd en dan gaan de andere hoge heren ook worden berecht net zolang totdat er in Nederland een RECHTVAARDIG RECHTSSYSTEEM heerst.
Tevens wordt de NO CANCER FOUNDATION vzw opgedoekt en zal Bayer die een heleboel schandalen op hun naam hebben en dit tevens van kracht is voor Monsanto wegens uitroeien van de mensheid doormiddel van kankerverwekkende geneesmiddelen zullen medewerkers van de raden van bestuur ook in Quantanamo-Bay belanden en de straffen zijn in The United States niet mals.
De door mij ingediende moties zijn volgens de beraadslaging voldoende onderbouwd om toegewezen te worden en dit is ook van toepassing op de ten uitvoerlegging van de EISEN om de nucleaire derde Wereldoorlog te stoppen.
De chemische geneesmiddelenindustrie zal moeten wijken voor de homeopatische industrie en de aanhangers van de chemische geneesmiddelenindustrie die als motto hebben: In lies we trust zullen zelf slachtoffer worden van de door hun eigen opgezette vallen om de mensheid uit te roeien en hebben nu hun eigen graf gegraven.
De boeien van de Satan zijn gebroken dankzij het KOSTBARE HEILIGE BLOED VAN KONING JEZUS DE ZOON VAN GOD ALMACHTIG en de dood is overwonnen door de OPSTANDING VAN KONING JEZUS DE ZOON VAN GOD ALMACHTIG.
De schandalen over de farmaceutische industrie waar miljarden op verdiend wordt zal worden vernietigt en deze financien worden vergoed aan de dakloze NL Staatsburgers d.m.v huisvesting te geven gebaseerd op de Abiogenese van het CHRISTENDOM.
Natuurlijk zal ook degene die daadwerkelijk Het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden de troon verdiend op de troon zitten om Het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden te besturen met een regering die Het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden waardig is.
De door mij ingediende EISEN zijn U Edelhoogachtbare Voorzitters Staatsraden van de Raad van State bekend en voeg deze nogmaals toe:

De Eisen:

- Een bank openen met de naam JEZUS regeert over financiën in chartaal geld of financiën in chartaal geld vanJEZUS.

- De pseudo filosofische cultus Scientology Staatsbank ING gecontroleerd failliet laten gaan en de medewerkers die niet heben gefraudeert hun werkzaam heden laten voortzetten bij de bank JEZUS regeert over financiën in chartaal geld of financiën in chartaal geld van JEZUS.

-Opdoeken pseudo filosofische cultus scientology en Vrijmetselarij(NASA-Leaks) door het Ministerie vanveiligheid en Justitie en het Openbaar Ministerie omdat men de Demmink-zaak in de doofpot heeft gedrukt.

- Illuminatie en Vrijmetselarij zullen onderspit delven vanwege afvallig geloof in oog van agamotto die vergelijkbaar is met de baphomet en de nucleaire derde wereldoorlog bewerkstelligt deze sekte op te doeken.

- Sluiting van Rechtbanken die de wet- en regelgeving van de pseudo filosofische cultus scientology hanteren en van de Vrijmetselarij  per ommegaande na dagtekeningvan binnenkomst van dit document vanwege MAJESTEITSCHENNIS.

- Sluiting van Gerechtshoven die de wet- en regelgeving van de pseudofilosofische cultus scientology hanteren en van de Vrijmetselarij per ommegaande na dagtekening van binnenkomst van dit document vanwege MAJESTEITSCHENNIS.

- Scientologie-sekte Staatsbank ING opdoeken door het Ministerie van Veiligheid en Justitie.

- GEEN genade voor satan en uitroeiing van demonen is een vereiste!!!
- Schadevergoedingen per ommegaande uitkeren om de materiële en immateriële schade te vergoeden want er kunnen ook miljarden worden gëinvesteerd om de euro in stand te houden dus kunnen schadevergoedingen ook uitgekeerd worden van dit bedrag omdat er uit het niets geld wordt gedrukt!!!

- Koopwoningen met de helft van de prijzen te verlagen om de ten uitvoerlegging van de Europese Unie nucleaire derde wereldoorlog te stoppen!!!

-Medewerkersvan de Bankensector die volgens de taxonomievan de hiarchie disfunctioneren zelf de schade laten vergoeden.

-Alle schulden kwijtschelden van de Europese Unie Staatsburgers en ook van alle Europese Unielanden de Staatsschulden kwijtschelden omdat de RECHTSPRAAK.NL gebaseerd is op de kiem en Nederland de grootste E.U-Belastingbetaler is.

-Mainstream media op eigen kosten laten uitzenden en niet door belastingbetaler wegens verkeerde informatie

- Makelaars die hebben meegewerkt aan Vastgoedfraude verplicht deze koopakten verstrekkenaan Dakloze Nederlandse Staatsburgers zonder financiën in chartaal geld te ontvangen.
Heeren Makelaardij die ter domicilie kantoor gevestigt hebben aan stadionweg 75, 1077 SE Amsterdam zullen als eerste dakloze Nederlandse Staatsburgers onderdak moeten verstrekken vanwege airbnb.

 
-Kostenvoorschot in depot afschaffen van Advocaten, Juristen want dit wordt in Japan als een strafbaar delict gezien en het Japanse Rechtssysteem is ingevoerd sinds 2002.

-Europese Unie Staatsburgers na griffierechtkosten te hebben voldaan zelf als belanghebbende zittingen aanlaten brengen bij Rechtbanken en Gerechtshoven gebaseerd op het Nederlands Juridisch Rechtssysteem gebaseerd op een bindende Constitutionele Monarchie van de Seculiere Rechtsstaat der Nederlanden.

- Stoppen van Nucleaire derde wereldoorlog en Machtsgreep op THE WHITE HOUSE en de Europese Unie Landen met betrekking tot de huizenmarkt door een inachtneming van wetsartikel 8:69 REFORMATIO IN PEIUS en de eigen staatsburgers hun eigen LAND, EIGEN CULTUUR, EIGEN TAAL EN EIGEN MUNTEENHEID terug te geven!!!

- Herinvoering van de Nederlandse Florijn en voor andere Europese Unie Landen hun oude munteenheden gebaseerd op het Sociale zekerheidsstelsel zodat gezondheidszorgstelsel overeind blijft en pensioenfondsen!!!

- AFSCHAFFING VAN BONUSSEN VOOR BANKIERS EN ZIEKENHUISDIRECTEUREN EN MENSEN MET HOGE FUNCTIES

Tevens voeg ik als bijlage het economisch commentaar van Dhr W  Boonstra toe en dan is scenario 3 van toepassing en publiceer dit maar eens in de kranten als U durft gebaseerd op het ETHISCH CHRISTELIJK JURIDISCH RECHTSSYSTEEM VAN NEDERLAND GEBASEERD OP EEN BINDENDE CONSTITUTIONELE MONARCHIE:

De 10 geboden:

1:Eerste gebod.

GOD gaf de volgende grondregels:HIJ ZEI''IK DE HEER BEN JULLIE GOD''
Ik heb je uitEgypte gehaald, uit dat slavenoord, houd er dus geen andere goden op na.
IK BEN ER IMMERS.
2:Tweede gebod.

Maak geen afgodsbeeld; niets van wat in de hemel op aarde ook in water onder aarde mag je afbeelden.
Kniel voor zulke goden niet neer, vereer ze niet want IK de HEER BEN jullie GOD.
Wie zich tegen MIJ verzet zal IK straffen hem en ook zijn nakomelingen tot in de derde en vierde generatie.
Maar wie mij liefhebben en zich houden aan mijn geboden die blijf IK trouw tot in de duizendste generatie.

3:Derde gebod.
Misbruik mijn naam niet.
Want IK de HEER zal straffen wie mijn naam misbruikt.
4:Vierde gebod.
Houd de sabbat in ere.
Het moet een bijzondere dag voor je zijn.
Zes dagen heb je om te werken maar de zevende dag, de sabbat is een rustdag die aan mij de HEER je GOD is gewijd.
Verricht dan geen enkel werk.
Dat geldt voor jezelf, je zoon en je dochter, je slaaf en je slavin.
Het geldt ook voor je vee en voor je vreemdeling die in je stad woont.
Want in zes dagen heb IK de hemel, de aarde en de zee gemaakt en alles wat zij bevat, maar op de zevende dag heb IK gerust.
Daarom heb IK de sabbat gezegend en er een bijzondere dag van gemaakt.

5:Vijfde gebod.
Heb je eerbied voor je vader en je moeder.
Dan zul je een lang leven hebben in het land dat IK de HEER je GOD je ga geven.
6:Zesde gebod.
Bega geen moord.

7:Zevende gebod.
Pleeg geen overspel.

8:Achtste gebod.
Steel niet.
9:Negende gebod.

Beschuldig niemand op valse gronden.

10:Tiende gebod.

Zet je zinnen niet op het huis van een ander, ook niet op zijn vrouw, zijn slaaf of slavin, zijn koe of ezel, of iets anders dat vanhem is.

Uit Lucas 11:45

Maar KONING JEZUS ZEI:''Wee jullie wetsgeleerden! Want jullie leggen de mensen ondraaglijke lasten op maar raken die zelf met geen vinger aan.'' 

Uit Titus 3:1
Herinner allen eraan dat ze overheid en gezag moeten erkennen en gehoorzaam moeten zijn bereid om altijd het goede te doen van niemand kwaad mogen spreken, vredelievend moeten zijn en zich tegenover iedereen zachtmoedig moeten gedragen.
Uit Handelingen 28:26-31

Ga tot dit volk en zeg: met oren zult gij horen en niet verstaan.
En scherp zult gij zien en niet inzien.
Want verstokt is het hart van het volk;hun oren zijn hardhorig en hun ogen zijn gesloten opdat zij niet zouden zien met de ogen, en verstaan met het hart.
Opdat zij zich zouden bekeren en IK hen zou genezen.
Weet dan dat het heil van GOD ALMACHTIG tot de heidenen gezonden is.
Zij zullen luisteren en terwijl hij dit zeide gingen de joden heen en twistte hevig onder elkander.
Hij bleef 2 volle jaren in het huis dat hij gehuurd had en ontving er allen die hem bezochten.
Hij preekte over het KONINKRIJK GODS en leerde over de HEER JEZUS CHRISTUS in alle vrijmoedigheid en ongehinderd.

Uit Joel 2:25

Alzo zal IK u lieden de jaren vergelden die de sprinkhaan, de kever, de rups en de kruidworm heeft afgegeten.

Uit Romeinen 1:18

Want de toorn GODS word geopenbaard van den hemel over alle goddeloosheid en ongerechtigheid der mensen, als die waarheid in ongerechtigheid ten onder houden.

Uit Marcus 14:18-25

En als zij aanzaten en aten zeide JEZUS:"Voorwaar IK zeg u een van u die met mij eet mij zal verraden."
En zij begonnen allen bedroefd te worden en de een na de ander tot HEM te zeggen:"Ben ik het ?" Ben ik het?"
Maar HIJ antwoordde en zeide tot hen:"Het is een van de twaalven die met MIJ in de schotel doopt."
De ZOON des mensen gaat wel heen gelijk van HEM geschreven is maar wee dien mens door welke de ZOON verraden wordt!!!
Het ware hem goed zo die mens niet geboren ware geweest.
En als zij aten, nam JEZUS het brood en als HIJ gezegend had brak HIJ het en gaf het hun en zeide:"Neemt , eet dat is mijn lichaam."
En HIJ nam de drinkbeker en gedankt hebbende, gaf hun dien en zij dronken allen uit den zelven.
En HIJ zeide tot hen:"Dat is MIJN BLOED, het BLOED des nieuwe testaments, het welk voor velen vergoten wordt.
Voorwaar IK zeg u:" dat IK niet meer zal drinken van de vrucht des wijnstoks tot op die dag wanneer IK dezelve nieuw zal drinken in het KONINKRIJK GODS.

Uit Marcus 14:44

En die HEM verried had hun een gemeen teken gegeven en zeggende:"Dien ik kussen zal, die is het, grijpt HEM en leidt HEM zekerlijk henen.

Uit Marcus 15:22-28

En zij brachten HEM tot de plaats Golgotha, het welk is overgezet zijnde Hoofdschedelplaats.
En zij gaven HEM gemirreden wijn te drinken; maar HIJ nam die niet.
En als zij HEM gekruisigd hadden verdeelden zij ZIJN klederen werpende het lot over dezelve, wat een ieglijk wegnemen zou.
En het was het derde ure en zij kruisigden HEM.
En het opschrift ZIJNER beschuldiging was boven HEM geschreven:DE KONING DER JODEN.
En zij kruisigden met HEM twee moordenaars, een aan de rechterzijde, en een aan de linkerzijde. 

Uit Marcus 16:5-6

En in het graf ingegaan zijnde zagen zij een jongeling zittende ter rechterzijde bekleed met een wit lang kleed en werden verbaasd.
Maar hij zeide tot haar:"Zijt niet verbaasd;gij zoekt JEZUS de Nazarener, die gekruisigd was;HIJ IS OPGESTAAN;HIJ is niet hier;ziet de plaats waar zij HEM gelegd hadden.

Uit Marcus 16:19

De HERE dan nadat HIJ tot hen gesproken had is opgenomen in den hemel en is gezeten aan de Rechterhand GODS.

Uit Romeinen 14:11-12

Want er staat geschreven:
"Zo waarachtig IK LEEF"spreekt de HERE:Voor mij zal elke knie zich buigen en alle tong zal GOD LOVEN.
Zo zal dan een ieder onzer voor zichzelf rekenschap geven aanGOD.

Uit Openbaringen 19:1

Toen hoorde ik uit de hemel het geluid als van een grote menigte, die zei:"LOOF GOD!!! Van HEM komt alle redding! Voor HEM is alle EER en MACHT!!!"

Uit Openbaringen 21:1-5

Ik zag een nieuwe hemel en een nieuwe aarde.
De tegenwoordige hemel en de tegenwoordige aarde waren er niet meer; ook de zee was verdwenen.
Ik zag de Heilige stad, een nieuw jeruzalemvan GOD uit de hemel naar beneden komen.
Zij zag er feestelijk uit als een bruid die op haar bruidegom wacht.
Ik hoorde een luide stem uit de troon zeggen:"GODS huis staat nu bij de mensen."
HIJ zal bij hun wonen.
Zij zullen zijn volk zijn en HIJ zal zelf bij hun zijn.
HIJ zal alle tranen van hun ogen afwissen en er zal geen dood meer zijn.
Van verdriet, rouw en pijn zal geen sprake meer zijn.
Dat hoort allemaal bij de oude wereld en die is voorbij.
"HIJ die op de troon zat, zei:"IK maak alles nieuw."
En HIJ zei tegen mij:''Schrijf het allemaal op, want wat IK zeg is waar en betrouwbaar.''

Uit Openbaringen slot de drievoudige verzekering der waarheid.

Verzekering van KONING JEZUS.

Toen sprak HIJ tot mij :''Verzegel niet de woorden der profetie van dit boek want de tijd is nabij!''
Wie onrecht doet; laat hem onrecht bedrijven.
Wie onrein is laat hem zich verder bevlekken; maar de gerechtiger moet steeds gerechter, de heilige moet nog heiliger worden.
Zie IK kom spoedig; mijn loon draag IK bij mij.
IK BEN DE ALFA EN DE OMEGA.
De eerste en de laatste, het begin en het einde!
Zalig zij die hun klederen wassen om recht door de poorten de stad binnen te gaan.
Maar naar buiten met de honden, de tovenaars en ontuchtigen, de moordenaars en de afgodendienaars.
En al wie de leugen liefheeft en spreekt!
IK JEZUS heb mijn engel gezonden, om u dit alles te betuigen ten behoeve der kerken.
IK BEN davids wortel en spruit; de lichtende morgenster!
En de geest en de bruid zeggen:"kom!"
Wie dorst heeft, hij kome!
Wie wil neme het water des levens, om niet! 

Uit Spreuken 6:30-31

Een dief die steelt omdat hij honger heeft steelt uit noodzaak.
Men veracht hem niet,
al moet hij het gestolene ook zevenvoudig terugbetalen als hij wordt betrapt, al kost het hem ook alles wat hij heeft.

Uit Matheus: 22:17-21

Zeg ons dan: wat dunkt U? Is het geoorloofd, den keizer schatting te geven of niet?
Maar JEZUS, bekennende hun boosheid, zeide:
Gij geveinsden, wat verzoekt gij MIJ?Toont MIJ de schattingpenning.
En zij brachten HEM een penning.
En HIJ zeide tot hen: Wiens is dit beeld en het opschrift?
Zij zeiden tot HEM:Des keizers.
Toen zeide HIJ tot hen: Geeft dan den keizer, dat des keizers is en GOD, dat GODS is.


Met de meeste hoogachting,

R.J.M Zwijnenberg





Bijlage 1: Ontvangen documenten THE WHITE HOUSE Washington D.C
Bijlage 2: Geschreven documenten THE WHITE HOUSE Washington D.C.
Bijlage 3: NO CANCER FOUNDATION vzw 27 Mei 2012 (Pinksteren feest van de uitstorting van de HEILIGE GEEST).
Bijlage 4: Syndroom van cotard.
Bijlage 5: Jules Cotard.
Bijlage 6: Hôpital de la Salpêtrière

+info: http://www.doctoralia-fr.com/centre-medical/hopital+de+la+salpetriere+service+de+neurologie-1133333
Bijlage 7: Amyotrofe laterale sclerose.
Bijlage 8: Dr Tullio Simonci en...'Kanker is een Schimmel.
Bijlage 9: ''The Truth About Cancer: A Global Quest''
Bijlage 10: Tweede Wereldoorlog.
Bijlage 11: Categorie: Operatie tijdens de Tweede Wereldoorlog.
Bijlage 12: Fall Weiss.
Bijlage 13: Frontotemporale dementie.
Bijlage 14: Apathie.
Bijlage 15: Rechter.
Bijlage 16: Raadsheer.
Bijlage 17: Avolitie.
Bijlage 18: Anhedonie.
Bijlage 19: Aangeleerde hulpeloosheid.
Bijlage 20: Behaviorisme.
Bijlage 21: Scepticisme.
Bijlage 22: Databank verkiezingsuitslag.
Bijlage 23: Nederlanders.
Bijlage 24: Nederlanders hebben massaal geen vertrouwen in politiek.
Bijlage 25: De Kroon - Parlement & Politiek.
Bijlage 26: Registratie politieke partijen.
Bijlage 27: Het ontbrekende inspreekrecht van de burger in de Tweede Kamer.
Bijlage 28: Kiesraad - Hoofdinhoud Parlement & Politiek.
Bijlage 29: Verkiezingsfraude.
Bijlage 30: Derde wereldoorlog.
Bijlage 31: Ministerie van Defensie (Nederland).
Bijlage 32: Ministerie van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit.
Bijlage 33: Milieu arts Henk Jans invloedrijke Brabander op Publieke gezondheid.
Bijlage 34: Xen Tari.
Bijlage 35: Kankermedicijn dreigt onbetaalbaar te worden.
Bijlage 37: The Truth about Cancer: A Global Quest.
Bijlage 38: Wereld gezondheidsorganisatie.
Bijlage 39: Geneesmiddelen 6% BTW Nederland.
Bijlage 40: Belastingdienst.
Bijlage 41: Belastingdienst (Nederland).
Bijlage 42: Wet kinderopvang en kwaliteitseisen peuterspeelzalen.
Bijlage 43: Jeugdzorg.
Bijlage 44: Miljarden euro' s naar Turkije zolang EU-gesprekken lopen.
Bijlage 45: Joris Demmink Tribunaal.
Bijlage 46: Gevangenis.
Bijlage 47: Sluiting gevangenissen is onvermijdelijk.
Bijlage 48: Lijst van Nederlandse Ministeries.
Bijlage 49: Het Koninklijk Huis.
Bijlage 50: Communicatie en voorlichting over Het Koninklijk Huis.
Bijlage 51: Leden Koninklijk Huis.
Bijlage 52: Koninklijke Familie.
Bijlage 53: Ipsos.
Bijlage 54: Waarom stond de nooit opgeloste zaak schadwald volgens justitie onder kwaad gesternte?
Bijlage 55: Manual Schadwald verdwenen in pedonetwerk, of...
Bijlage 56: Topambtenaren in pedonetwerk.
Bijlage 57: Nederlandse politici en de Bilderberggroep.
Bijlage 58: Pim Fortuyn.
Bijlage 59: Presentatie van het boek van actrice Ine Veen: Moord namens de Kroon.
Bijlage 60: Abu Fatah de moordenaar van Pim Fortuyn.
Bijlage 61: Justitiele dwaling.
Bijlage 62: Aangifte (Politie).
Bijlage 63: Wanbedrijf.
Bijlage 64: Procureur des Konings.
Bijlage 65: Categorie: Geschiedenis van Belgie.
Bijlage 66: Geschiedenis van Nederland.
Bijlage 67: Chipshol.
Bijlage 68: Luchthaven Schiphol.
Bijlage 69: Chipsholwanbeleid.
Bijlage 70: Dossier Westenberg.
Bijlage 71: Arrest in zaak Hugo Smit tegen Hans Westenberg 23Juni.
Bijlage 72: Klacht niet vervolging artikel 12 SV.
Bijlage 73: Bayer to Acquire Monsanto.
Bijlage 74: Bayer to acquire Monsanto creating a Global Leader in Agriculture.
Bijlage 75: JD Report.
Bijlage 76: Ex-vriendin: Camiel Eurlings heeft wel een strafblad.
Bijlage 78: Breaking nieuws: Nog nooit vertoond! OM ' Doet geen mededelingen' over zaak Eurlings dat is tegen de wet.
Bijlage 79: Macro Trends de illusie van Venetie.
Bijlage 80: Bankensector Nederland.
Bijlage 81: Glucose-6-fosfaatdehydrogenase.
Bijlage 82: Categorie:bloed-of immuunaandoening.
Bijlage 83: Beenmergdepressie.
Bijlage 84: Antithymocytenglobuline.
Bijlage 85: Cyclosporine.
Bijlage 86: Macrocylische verbinding.
Bijlage 87: Eurozone.
Bijlage 88: Europese Centrale Bank.
Bijlage 90: Economisch commentaar door Dhr W Boonstra; Een worstelend Europa in een veranderende wereld.
Bijlage 91: Kopie Legitimatie Mw R.J.M Zwijnenberg