King Charles the Last: Fulfilling Rasputin's Prophecy!

Rasputin, the "Mad Monk," needs no introduction to anyone with even cursory knowledge of the end of Imperial Russia.

The excremental taint of his relationship with Tsar Nicholas II and his hysterical wife Alexandra enveloped the autocratic regime and ultimately was one of the factors behind the collapse of Nicholas II's government, the two Russian Revolutions of 1917 and the death of the Imperial Family in a blood-spattered cellar in June of 1918.

Among many of the pronouncements and prophecies of this "Holy Man" was one that concerned the United Kingdom.

The monarchy would survive there, he said, until a Battenberg would sit on the English throne.

As of September 2022, a Battenberg has been sitting upon the English throne in the person of King Charles III.

And his reign is in deep shit!

King Charles's paternal grandmother was none other than Princess Alice of Battenberg.

Her son, Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark, adopted an anglicized version of Battenberg. Mountbatten, as his surname before marrying the heiress to the English throne.

Elizabeth II, upon her accession to the throne, made it clear that the dynasty would remain the House and Family of Windsor, but the surname of her descendants would be "Mountbatten-Windsor."

King Charles III is therefore a Battenberg! 

And his monarchy is facing its worst crisis for survival since the Abdication.

One can argue, this crisis is not the fault of Charles, although he is no stranger to scandal.

Nor are his harebrained younger son and his narcissistic, exhibitionist wife to blame.

The gruesome twosome are merely nuisances and pests.

The embarrassment that Hairplug and Migraine have caused the monarchy has proven not to be fatal.

The shenanigans of Charles' younger brother, formerly the Duke of York, and his greedy ex-wife could very well bring down the monarchy.

Or at least the abdication of King Charles III.

And, unfortunately for him, he inherited this mess from his mother.

Queen Elizabeth II doted on Andrew. He is reputed to have been her favorite child, and she let him get away with everything.

Since so much information has come out with the release of the Epstein files (e-mails, photos, recordings, flight records, documents) in the last few months regarding Andrew and Fergie, and the news media has been dining out daily for weeks about these revelations, I will only touch upon them briefly here.

It is sufficient to say that both Andrew and Fergie have been lying repeatedly about the extent of their relationship with the deceased convicted sex offender and pedophile Jeffrey Epstein.

Both have lied about how and when they ended their friendship with Epstein, maintaining their friendship with him even after he was convicted of soliciting a minor for sex and released from prison.

It was Epstein who actually ended the relationship with them.

At that point, Andrew was no longer a trade envoy for the United Kingdom, who had previously sent Epstein confidential, restricted or classified information about trade deals with foreign countries, which Epstein would promptly pass along to other interested "clients."

Epstein had been rewarding Andrew with access to girls and young women in return.

As for Fergie, Epstein had been giving her financial support since her divorce from Andrew.

She was forever begging Epstein for money for which, in return, she offered Epstein contact with some of her connections.

Fergie even asked Epstein to marry her!

When it became obvious that Fergie wasn't able to arrange for Epstein to meet the Queen, the then Prince of Wales (now King Charles III) or Prince William (now Prince of Wales). he stopped responding to her e-mails.

And despite the fact that evidence has already shown that Andrew was using Epstein's services of procurement of girls and women, brought to him on what was dubbed by the media as the "Lolita Express" (Epstein's private jet), it was the charge of Andrew's misconduct in office while the UK's trade envoy (sharing trade secrets with Epstein) for which Andrew was actually arrested on February 19!

So how is any of this King Charles III's fault when he claims that he knew nothing about his brother's activities and has made statements that he would support police investigations into Andrew's activities and that justice must take its course?

For one thing, Charles has not exactly been honest about being in the dark of Andrew's carousing.

Both he and the late queen knew plenty of what was going on. And they actively attempted to cover it up.

When security staff and service personnel expressed concerns over the comings and goings of Andrew's "guests" at royal residences, they were either demoted or sacked, encouraging others who wanted to retain their positions to look the other way.

In short, they knew.

And they have known for at least fifteen years!

The official story of the hush money of 12 million pounds sterling paid to Virginia Giuffre to NOT take Andrew to court in the United States for sexual abuse has undergone so many different changes in the last few weeks so as NOT to implicate Charles in the payoff that people wonder if anyone has been telling the truth.

Frankly, why would anyone seek to pay out so much to a person they claimed never to have met before, unless of course they had?

The fact that the late queen stripped Andrew of his HRH and some of his offices AFTER he agreed to be interviewed on television in 2019 is significant. Even she was having doubts about the innocence of her favorite child.

After the Epstein files were released in the Fall of 2025, leaving no doubt of Andrew and Fergie's dishonesty on the subject of Epstein, Charles continued what his mother had started by stripping Andrew of all remaining honors and titles,

Andrew was now a commoner, Mr. Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, and forced to vacate Royal Lodge, a thirty-room mansion on the precincts of Windsor Castle for a smaller five-bedroom "cottage" on the royal estate at Sandringham, which is Charles's personal property.

It was done to keep Andrew out of the public eye.

And it was here that he was arrested on suspicion of misconduct in public office.

Yet Andrew remains in the line of succession and is still eligible to be a "Councilor of State" in the event the King is unable to act, owing to illness or incapacitation.

Hmm. Some people have demanded that Andrew be stripped of both.

Nobody knows what Fergie has been up to since she lost her title as Duchess of York,

She, too, had been forced out of Royal Lodge, where she had been living with Andrew for the last twenty years, ten years AFTER they were divorced,

Proximity to the Royal Family and the title of Duchess gave her a lot to sell, which is why she always broadcast that she and Andrew were the "Happiest divorced couple" she knew

It's odd that Andrew has never been recorded saying that.

Now that she's lost it, it is presumed that she has fled the UK to avoid being questioned by the police for her share in the Epstein scandal.

The King made it quite clear that Fergie was NOT to cohabit with Andrew any longer.

She hasn't been seen in public since September. Her charities dropped her and her business have been closing up.

Fergie is in desperate need for a new meal ticket.

As for King Charles III, not in the best of health and being treated for cancer, he is paying the price for having turned a blind eye to his brother's foibles.

More and more Brits are asking themselves and heckling him about how long he had known about Andrew's behavior,

It is obvious that he has known for a long time and probably hoped that each band-aid he applied would staunch the bleeding and heal the wounds his brother had inflicted on both his victims and his family.

Only it didn't.

And many Brits are now calling for his abdication from a throne that he had waited 74 years to assume.

That would bring his son to the throne as William V, and William is a lot more dynamic than his father regarding Andrew, Fergie, Hairplug and Migraine.

But, what should be more worrisome to Charles is the call by an increasing number of Brits to end the monarchy altogether and to become a republic.

The present British government is controlled by the Labour Party, which is no fan of the monarchy.

But the Labour Party, too, has been connected to the Epstein scandal, with some of its members being intimates of his for a long time after his conviction. This has further polarized them in Parliament and reduced their ability to accomplish anything while engaging in a bit of a civil war with their own Prime Minister.

Charles sits upon an extremely shaky throne, with daily revelations making ordinary Brits question the concept of monarchy, if it really necessary to continue this archaic institution to preserve Britishness.

They know that they can't trust Andrew. They are beginning to believe that they can't trust their King, either.

It does not bode well for Charles III's continued presence on the Throne.

And with such public distrust of the monarch, Brits might not want any more.

I wonder when the House of Windsor will have its "Going Out of Business" sale?

It doesn't look far off.