King Charles, Investigation into cash for honours dropped!!
But why? Do you remember this story that was quashed?
No such thing as a Coincidence

https://metro.co.uk/2023/08/21/king-charles-princes-foundation-investigation-closed-19368896/?ico=mosaic_news

HOWEVER!!
Remember this story that was hushed up?
Prince Charles had homosexual relationship with Michael Fawcett

The excellent artIcle below is from 2002, it's long and VERY revealing!!

We remember and followed this story at the time. Diane went to see George Smith in hospital. George died a broken man after his revelation about what he saw in the palace, they destroyed him! Was this also part of the reason they murdered Diana? It was certainly the reason they raided Paul Burrell's home, looking for the tape. The story exposes jug ears homosexuality and the reason Diana said he would never be king.

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.princess-diana/c/zA6eaRY-1AI

Tape reveals Prince Charles had homosexual relationship with Michael Fawcett

Nov 19, 2002, 1:52:46?PM

"In article <17bf2bcf.02111...@posting.google.com>, posted to alt.gossip.royalty and stamped at '16:17:14' on 'Sun, 17 Nov 2002', Anne

Smith <wa...@mail.com> writes: I have recieved information from a very reliable source that the tapes at the centre of the St James Rape scandal allegedly contain evidence that Prince Charles had a homosexual relationship with Michael Fawcett. The allegation is made by George Smith who recalls walking into a room within St James Palace and catching the Prince of Wales and Michael Fawcett in a sexual act. This is the explosive revelation that St James Palace wishes to coverup. Knowledge of this incident was behind Diana's claim that Charles would never be King.

BUT, be all this as is it may, we should not forget that CERTAIN MATERIAL MENTIONED IN EARLY REPORTS IS NO LONGER BEING MENTIONED.

In particular:

a) ANOTHER RAPE was mentioned - namely a rape of a male servant working at BUCKINGHAM PALACE, a rape that was supposedly INVESTIGATED BY THE POLICE, but which THE SERVANT IS SUPPOSED NOT TO HAVE WANTED TO PURSUE.

and

b) the servant involved in the 'incident' (i.e. sex) between 'a member of the royal family and a servant' was NOT identified as being the 'alleged rapist' of George Smith, nor as being 'a senior adviser to Prince Charles', nor with any of the other phrases used to mean 'Michael Fawcett'. The publication of the idea that the servant who was 'caught' in the 'potentially highly damaging' incident with the member of the royal family was Michael Fawcett came LATER. And one of the first papers that published it - perhaps the very first - was the 'Scotsman', owned by the same people (the Barclay brothers) who own the London Ritz, which is in a business partnership with 'Prince' Charles.

I would observe:

1) clearly an effort has been made to take the spotlight off of the other rape, and for that matter off of the use of male prostitutes ('rent boys', i.e. male child prostitutes) at St James's Palace and Buckingham Palace. Despite the fact that this other rape was investigated by the police, no editor has printed any details about that investigation, nor have they printed, as far as I am aware, any official statement by police or CPS as to why no charges were brought.

As damage limitation, a spotlight is allowed to play on one particular victim only, namely Mr Smith, and attempts are then made to assassinate his character. Yes he appears to have convictions for drunk driving, and to have been sectioned, but no media commentator has made the point that he does not appear to have what the authorities would call a record of dishonesty (e.g. any conviction for theft, or any record of making statements in court that a jury decided were false).

The ludicrous story has been printed that Mr Smith is in the habit of imagining at every opportunity that men leap out from behind bushes and rape him. Of course, it could well have happened that the Windsors *did* send men to rape him, in order that he would then tell the police and not be believed. Anyone who thinks that's highly improbable should think about the murders of Hilda Murrell, Stephen Milligan, James Rusbridger, and of a large number of people working at Marconi and the Royal College of Military Science - many of whose murders involved sexual perversion.

But anyway, as far as any rape allegations are concerned, the media spotlight is firmly on the rape of Mr Smith, when earlier reports indicated that at least one other rape occurred, and was known to the police, and - an incident was known about involving a member of the royal family and a servant - a sexual incident that could do irreparable damage to the monarchy. It does not take much to speculate that this was the RAPE of a servant by a member of the royal family.

The scandal concerning the gifts being sold is merely an attempt by the Palace to deflect attention away form this revelation that has the potential to >bring down the Monarchy..... READ MORE