Victoria Miriam Bond – Royal Bodyguard

by Walter Bird, bromide print, 1963

Never did my friends and enemies celebrate my apparent mental demise, more then when I declared Muse Rena Easton was the embodiment of Britania, she anointed to save Britain – and her royalty!

In my letter to Senator Merkley I ask him to check-out the British Defence Staff – Washington that have hundreds of personal in many States. What I suggest, is, a Royal Bodyguard can be made up of these loyal people, loyal to the interests of Britain and the United States. There looms a huge problem with how the Duke and Duchess of Sussex will be guarded. What I suggest is ‘The Royal Janitors’. This will be their job description. They will be paid $44 dollars an hour. They will be highly trained – and motivated!

For some time I have considered founding a Knights Templar group. I have proven the Rougemont Templars owned the Shroud of Turin. The Windsors descend from a branch of the Rougemonts.

John Presco

President: Royal Rosamond Press

The most complicated of all the issues raised by Harry and Meghan’s decision to step down as full-time senior royals is their protection – specifically, what form it will take, who will provide it and who will pay for it.

The idea that they can split their lives between private and public roles is unprecedented, and deeply problematic when it comes to their security. I struggle to see how it will work. It risks compromising either their safety or their integrity.

If they are acting as independent individuals either in the UK or abroad, then their eligibility for Government-funded protection is questionable. Should they fund their own protection from the private sector? This would be logical. But it would also be highly dangerous, as private bodyguards can never offer them the level of protection they will need.

This was illustrated all too well by the tragedy of Princess Diana, who was not under the protection of Scotland Yard when she died. The inexperience and ineptitude of the private bodyguards supplied by Mohamed Al Fayed, in my view, played a part in her death.

Private bodyguards do not undergo anything like the level of highly specialist training that Met Police officers dedicated to protecting the Royal Family and senior state figures, such as the Prime Minister, receive.

Security is a public matter, affecting the taxpayer, so will have to be discussed publicly, unleashing yet more controversy.

Many people feel that wealthy royals should pay for it themselves rather than expecting the taxpayer to fund it.

Providing protection is a multi-million-pound business. Protecting the Sussexes, including baby Archie, will involve at least two officers per person – that’s six people for the three of them – over a 24-hour period, plus two to relieve them.

If you then allow an extra one or two for sickness, and others to carry out reconnaissance, which is absolutely vital, you are looking at a team of eight to ten, each on a salary of £80,000 to £100,000.

Factor in the costs of accommodation, food and airfares and the bill goes up to around £2million or £3million a year.

Fine if Harry and Meghan are performing their royal role all year round, but why should taxpayers pay for them when they are not?

Security is not something that can simply be turned on and off like a tap as they move between their private and public lives. It has to remain constant to be effective.

And what if they move to Canada for half the year? Should the Canadians supply their protection, or the British? The Canadians are hardly going to be happy footing the bill. But then, why should the British pay to protect them year-round if they are not here?

The fact is that Harry and Meghan can’t have it both ways. The one way in which Harry and Meghan can retain both integrity and security is to have constant Scotland Yard protection, but pay for it themselves. But this requires deep pockets.

What’s more, successful protection depends on officers developing a working chemistry with the royals.

When working with Diana she frequently asked me for advice, and I gave it with honesty based on experience. Harry and Meghan could do with advice right now. Truly, I sympathise with them – their decision to give up on their full-time roles was clearly a difficult one. Yet they have so much to lose with this move and, I suspect, may come to regret it.

At present, there exist rich and robust coordinating mechanisms between the uniformed service staffs of these two close allies (for example, the British Army Staff to U.S. Army Staff exchange program), operational headquarters (liaison officers and embedded operational planners at U.S. Geographic Combatant Commands and the U.K. Permanent Joint Headquarters), and military education systems within each nation. However, this dynamic is presentationally and functionally unbalanced at the strategic level. For while the U.K. MOD has a dedicated uniformed presence within the Pentagon, through the office of the Chief of Defence Staff Liaison to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and in Washington, D.C. through the British Defence Staff-U.S., the Department of Defense has no corollary within the Ministry of Defence or in Whitehall.

At a time when the U.S. government and defense establishment increasingly comments on the need to do more with partners and allies, the time is right and ripe to further enhance Anglo-American strategic planning and coordination through the establishment of a permanent, uniformed, and dedicated body of embedded strategic planners and Joint Staff Liaison Officers within the Ministry of Defence. This need is all the more critical following the end of major enduring coalition operations of the last decade in Iraq and Afghanistan, which in many ways provided the context and impetus for close strategic, operational, and tactical collaboration

I just sent this message to my Senator. I have been ambushed by Christian Hogs, and Wiccan Monsters – who are anarchists. They insist it is their right to tell everyone what to do – and use force if necessary!

John Presco

Dear Senator Merkley: I saw you on CNN last night speaking about how our traditional allies were not told the attack on the Iranian general was coming. Since Trump got elected I have been trying to find out how the British Defence Staff Washing D.C. Is faring. Winston Churchill founded this group after World War 2, to ensure Britain and the U.S. will forever be allies in combatting our mutual enemies. These are two English speaking Christian Nations. Our enemies were Buddhists and National Socialists. The Soviet Union was a atheist nation. Many people of many religions and dialect fought together against monsters. How many atheist wore the uniform of the United Freedom Fighters. Churchill wanted a group to show our enemies – that we are still UNITED!

I am a theologian who has been making overt, the covert agenda of the Christian-right for thirty years. I speak their language, their code. Senator Mich McConnell smirk as he accused the Democrats of “playing games” said this to me…..America is now a theocracy thanks to Jesus blessing the Republican party over the Democratic party. We are going to do BIG THINGS, like make prayers in school, legal, and, abortion, illegal. To start our Holy Campaign, we are going to kill a famous Iranian General. Until there is an investigation of the Evangelical leadership, we are doomed to go along with their plan which included…The Great Tribulation! We might be caught up in a dangerous fulfilling prophecy. What can we the people do to help democrats investigate this possibility? I would like you to inform other Senators of the BDS and make it our liaison in International affairs. There is enough evidence Trump, and the Soviet Union have done much damage to the Internal Community – that we are a part of!

One of my great grandfathers was born at Windsor Castle. He was a Puritan leader and head of the Massachusetts Bay Colony and a co-founders of Harvard College that was an ecclesiastical college and company, whose goal was the produce Puritan ministers. Reverend John Wilson did not like the competition, and appears Hawthorne’s ‘The Scarlet Letter’. I am also kin to Senator Thomas Hart Benton who was John Actor’s attorney. His son-in-law, John Fremont, was the first Republican candidate for the Republican party he co-founded.

Thank you for visiting Sussex Royal to learn more about the work of The Duke and Duchess of Sussex. Following their decision to adjust their working model in 2020, it is appropriate to amend their media relations policy to reflect their new roles. Their sincere hope is that this change in media policy will enhance access and give The Duke and Duchess the ability to share information more freely with members of the public. The following section explains the new media relations policy of Their Royal Highnesses The Duke and Duchess of Sussex.

How will The Duke and Duchess of Sussex handle media relations in the future?

In the spring of 2020, The Duke and Duchess of Sussex will be adopting a revised media approach to ensure diverse and open access to their work. This adjustment will be a phased approach as they settle into the new normality of their updated roles.  This updated approach aims to:

  • Engage with grassroots media organisations and young, up-and-coming journalists;
  • Invite specialist media to specific events/engagements to give greater access to their cause-driven activities, widening the spectrum of news coverage;
  • Provide access to credible media outlets focused on objective news reporting to cover key moments and events;
  • Continue to share information directly to the wider public via their official communications channels;
  • No longer participate in the Royal Rota system.

What is the ‘Royal Rota’ system?

The Royal Rota was established more than 40 years ago as a way of giving UK print and broadcast media exclusive inside access to the official engagements of members of the Royal Family.

Under this system, the rota, or pool, gives these British media representatives the opportunity to exclusively cover an event, on the understanding that they will share factual material obtained with other members of their sector who request it. The current system predates the dramatic transformation of news reporting in the digital age. The core group of UK outlets with Royal Rota access remain the predominant news source through which worldwide media organisations receive content on the official engagements of members of the Royal Family. These UK media outlets are: The Daily Express, The Daily Mail, The Daily Mirror, The Evening Standard, The Telegraph, The Times, The Sun.

Why have The Duke and Duchess of Sussex elected to change their media policy now?

The Duke and Duchess have chosen to revise their media policy to reflect both their forthcoming change as members of the Royal Family with financial independence, and their wish to reshape and broaden access to their work.

How does this new media policy relate to the UK’s Royal Correspondents?

Britain’s Royal Correspondents are regarded internationally as credible sources of both the work of members of The Royal Family as well as of their private lives. This misconception propels coverage that is often carried by other outlets around the world, amplifying frequent misreporting. Regrettably, stories that may have been filed accurately by Royal Correspondents are, also, often edited or rewritten by media editorial teams to present false impressions.

What is The Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s stance on media in general?

The Duke and Duchess believe in a free, strong and open media industry, which upholds accuracy and fosters inclusivity, diversity and tolerance. Both The Duke and Duchess have collaborated with media organisations including: Time Magazine, National Geographic, The Daily Telegraph, British Vogue, and various others. Their Royal Highnesses recognise that their roles as members of the Royal Family are subject to interest, and they welcome accurate and honest media reporting as well as being held to account if appropriate. Equally, like every member of society, they also value privacy as individuals and as a family.

Will they continue to have a social media platform?

Yes, The Duke and Duchess of Sussex will continue to have a social media platform. They look forward to continuing their use of social media and believe that their updated media approach will enable them to share more, with you, directly.

Historically, the understanding with the Royal Rota expects that if Their Royal Highnesses were to release a photo that has never been seen, they would be expected to give the image to The Rota (of which four of the seven are UK tabloids) simultaneously or in advance of their own release. This formula enables these select publications to profit by publishing these images on their websites/front pages. Any breach in this understanding creates long term repercussions.

The current structure makes it challenging for The Duke and Duchess of Sussex to personally share moments in their lives directly with members of the public (via social media for example), without first going through the filter of the Royal Rota. For more information on the rota system, please see top of this section.

Is this change of policy being adopted by other members of the Royal Family?

The changes outlined above apply to The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and their son, Archie. They do not speak on behalf of the other members of The Royal Family in regards to their media relations policies.

For more information:

Rena as Britania and American Eagle

britannia rena-large britania4

Rena’s late husband was Former Head of the British Defence Staff which was founded by Winston Churchill to insure these two allies would forever be on the same side. It appears Theresa May is responding to the pledge of unity in meeting with Don Juan Trumpster.

In 1970 I asked Rena to marry me, but, she was too young. Consider our beautiful children and their contributions to the Creative Irish Rosamond Line. I was poor and homeless when we met. We camped for fifty days in the beautiful wilderness of America. I knew nothing about my Patriotic roots, and Captain Samuel Rosamond.

I was once the low-life scum, the perfect example of an abusive male. I was not worthy to be in her company, least the same city. She went to live on the Isle of Wight with her rich, and elderly hero of the Empire, leaving me standing alone on Freedom Shores.

What great tales of old, what lines of beautiful poetry, can bring you home, and restore, the liberty we once owned atop Rose Mountain, above the fog, the clouds – the wings of muses soar! My beautiful American Dream.

Jon Presco

Admiral, K.C.B., D.S.C. Former Head of the British Defence Staff. He was Commandant of the Royal College of Defence Studies in 1976, a UK senior serving military officer between 1972 and 2001. For the 2nd Louis Vuitton Cup, which was held in Fremantle, Australia in 1987, he paid an entry fee deposit of $16.000 for Royal Thames Yacht Club’s White Crusader I and White Crusader II, representing United Kingdom.

In 1922 a cabinet committee under Winston Churchill, then Secretary of State for the Colonies, recommended the formation of the College.[1] The college was founded in 1927 as the Imperial Defence College and was located at 9 Buckingham Gate until 1939.[1] Its objective at that time was the defence of the Empire.[1] In 1946, following the end of World War II, the college reopened at Seaford House, Belgrave Square and members of the United States forces started attending courses.[1] It was renamed the Royal College of Defence Studies in 1970 and in 2007 the Queen and Prince Philip visited the college.[1]

The British Defence Staff – US, which was previously known as British Defence Staff (Washington),[1] is the home of the Ministry of Defence (United Kingdom) in the United States of America and its purpose is to serve the interests of Her Majesty’s Government in the USA. The British Defence Staff – US is led by the Defence Attaché and has responsibility for military and civilian MOD personnel located both within the Embassy and in 34 states across the USA.

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn asked if May would discuss the issue of misogyny with Trump and raise the concerns of 100,000 people who marched over the weekend in an anti-Trump pro-women’s rights demonstration in London. May responded that she was not afraid to “speak frankly” with the President, though she did not confirm she would bring up the issue of women’s rights with him.

In 1922 a cabinet committee under Winston Churchill, then Secretary of State for the Colonies, recommended the formation of the College.[1] The college was founded in 1927 as the Imperial Defence College and was located at 9 Buckingham Gate until 1939.[1] Its objective at that time was the defence of the Empire.[1] In 1946, following the end of World War II, the college reopened at Seaford House, Belgrave Square and members of the United States forces started attending courses.[1] It was renamed the Royal College of Defence Studies in 1970 and in 2007 the Queen and Prince Philip visited the college.[1]

Telegraph Reporters

US President-elect Donald Trump has written to Theresa May after she sent him a copy of a landmark wartime address given by Winston Churchill stressing the need for close Anglo-American relations.

Downing Street would not go into the details of the letter, but said part of it referred to the gift of the Churchill speech sent shortly after Christmas.

“Is there a sign I should know?” Enya

About Royal Rosamond Press

I am an artist, a writer, and a theologian.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to Victoria Miriam Bond – Royal Bodyguard

  1. Reblogged this on Rosamond Press and commented:

    The American College of Spies is born.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.