It's possible that Jenny Hocking wrote a book (or didn't) about something. There are suspicions swirling around 1975, Eckhart and others. The book raises suggestions that may accuse one of the royal queens but the question is not easy to pin down. The book can be put down and Charteris should be also. This secret material is supplemented by hidden guesses. Don't ask.

chimera wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2024 at 8:48am:

It's possible that Jenny Hocking wrote a book (or didn't) about something. There are suspicions swirling around 1975, Eckhart and others. The book raises suggestions that may accuse one of the royal queens but the question is not easy to pin down. The book can be put down and Charteris should be also. This secret material is supplemented by hidden guesses. Don't ask.

Your assessment of a book you've never read.

This is not a reply which doesn't mean what you think it is.

chimera wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2024 at 9:25am:

This is not a reply which doesn't mean what you think it is.

So, it is a reply which means what I don't think it is??

How do you know? Did you read between the lines?

chimera wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2024 at 9:39am:

How do you know? Did you read between the lines?

The trees of the earth are diamonds in the sky?

Hocking never said that or at least suggested it or rather questioned a hint. Why?

chimera wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2024 at 9:44am:

Hocking never said that or at least suggested it or rather questioned a hint. Why?

Quote the text in Hocking's book that contradicts or does not support what I have written in the other thread.

This post is blank and does NOT deny the absence of unknown secret non-existence.

chimera wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2024 at 9:58am:

This post is blank and does NOT deny the absence of unknown secret non-existence.

The sentence below is untrue.

The sentence above is true.

That proves the opposite just as Hocking did because Kerr thought so, she believed, by suspecting what the book would argue or not, according to the latest naive suspicions.

chimera wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2024 at 10:30am:

That proves the opposite just as Hocking did because Kerr thought so, she believed, by suspecting what the book would argue or not, according to the latest naive suspicions.

Another assessment of yours, having never read the book.

Were you educated in mainland China?

Me? I just watched 'Hocking and Kerr'.
https://www.sixthtone.com/news/1015980

chimera wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2024 at 10:46am:

Me? I just watched 'Hocking and Kerr'. https://www.sixthtone.com/news/1015980

Were you educated in mainland China?

Yes we did China in history at school. The British established treaty ports in China after the First Opium War through the Treaty of Nanking in 1842. The treaty established five treaty ports in China.  The Queen had a secret port Jackson for convicts and republican whitlams and pick pockets. She flogged them, her memoirs and any mad theory in the trash novels of those dark days.

chimera wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2024 at 11:28am:

Yes we did China in history at school. The British established treaty ports in China after the First Opium War through the Treaty of Nanking in 1842. The treaty established five treaty ports in China.  The Queen had a secret port Jackson for convicts and republican whitlams and pick pockets. She flogged them, her memoirs and any mad theory in the trash novels of those dark days.

We’re you educated in mainland China?

I missed this one - I assume that it is about the farcical 'decolonialisation' - without colonisation there would be no avenues for anyone to use to attempt to de-colonise anything... no legal right to do so ... no media ...

Let's look at Japan - once 'trade colonialism' was established and Japanese began to see how the West worked, they very quickly adapted and created a massively similar economy and military etc, and began to actively compete on the world stage - first fighting the Russians, then siding with the Allies in WWI and then you know the rest...

Point is - without that 'trade' colonisation, they would never have done any of those things, nor would they have the style of government or economy they now have, nor would the fools with alphabet names have any right to even consider such a thing in their 'new country' ..... imagine Japan as a form of Nipporassic Park, where the traditional old ways hold sway, and tourists arrive to travel through hermetically sealed plastiglass tunnels to watch the goings-on ... and peasants are arbitrarily beheaded by a passing Samurai for 'disrespect' ... and so forth... while various clans fight it out for the Shogunate which effectively dictates to the
Emperor...

Why would they even WANT to 'de-colonise'?  Why would an African chief in a tinpot dictatorship want to 'de-colonise'?  Why would a Singapore Chinese want to 'de-colonise'?  Why would an Arab prince want to 'de-colonise' and miss out on all the benefits etc of oil (the Saudi, despite some shortcoming and skullduggery, seem to have the right idea)?

Perhaps in countries where the ruling elite/class are derived from some foreign stock you might suggest some 'need' - perhaps some South American countries fit that bill ...... but why anyone else who is doing well?  Why would the Idiot Classes in the West want to 'de-colonise' that which benefits them to the point where they can even discuss such lunacy?

Truly we live in interesting times - we also live amongst some interesting types of people..... no asylum seekers - Asylum Escapees....

---

MeisterEckhart wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2024 at 12:33pm:

We’re you educated in mainland China?

We're with you. You and me.
We're with Queen Victoria, bless her royal socks, and Victoria  維城 Hong Kong, land of cherry blossoms. It always was, always will be, and used to be Elizabeth's land directly ruled with rod of iron and hereditary reserves of power. Charles is Forbidden in the City, with all the king's horses and GGs. Hocking has no chance even at Yarralumla. 

The Big Race.
Longines Hong Kong Cup   Sha Tin Racetrack.  $40,000,000  2000m.
23 Feb 2025   Sha Tin  Hong Kong Gold Cup, Queen's Silver Jubilee Cup.
The winning jockey is communist royalty until dismissal by the next king of sports.

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 74
Appeal to Queen in Council.
  No appeal shall be permitted to the Queen in Council from a decision of the High Court upon any question, howsoever arising, as to the limits inter se of the Constitutional powers of the Commonwealth and those of any State or States, or as to the limits inter se of the Constitutional powers of any two or more States, unless the High Court shall certify that the question is one which ought to be determined by Her Majesty in Council.

  The High Court may so certify if satisfied that for any special reason the certificate should be granted, and thereupon an appeal shall lie to Her Majesty in Council on the question without further leave.

  Except as provided in this section, this Constitution shall not impair any right which the Queen may be pleased to exercise by virtue of Her Royal prerogative to grant special leave of appeal from the High Court to Her Majesty in Council.   The Parliament may make laws limiting the matters in which such leave may be asked, but proposed laws containing any such limitation shall be reserved by the Governor-General for Her Majesty's pleasure.
-----------
The limits on royal powers to destroy the Commonwealth PM as described by the accused Ms Hocking are liable to be heard by the monarchy. He will bring down the hammer, hard.

chimera wrote on Nov 4^th, 2024 at 8:21am:

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 74 Appeal to Queen in Council.   No appeal shall be permitted to the Queen in Council from a decision of the High Court upon any question, howsoever arising, as to the limits inter se of the Constitutional powers of the Commonwealth and those of any State or States, or as to the limits inter se of the Constitutional powers of any two or more States, unless the High Court shall certify that the question is one which ought to be determined by Her Majesty in Council.   The High Court may so certify if satisfied that for any special reason the certificate should be granted, and thereupon an appeal shall lie to Her Majesty in Council on the question without further leave.   Except as provided in this section, this Constitution shall not impair any right which the Queen may be pleased to exercise by virtue of Her Royal prerogative to grant special leave of appeal from the High Court to Her Majesty in Council.   The Parliament may make laws limiting the matters in which such leave may be asked, but proposed laws containing any such limitation shall be reserved by the Governor-General for Her Majesty's pleasure. ----------- The limits on royal powers to destroy the Commonwealth PM as described by the accused Ms Hocking are liable to be heard by the monarchy. He will bring down the hammer, hard.

 

Yeah - so if Australia or a state becomes a petty tyranny despotism like the Neo-Nazi/Stalinist putsch from the 'left' these days in their hooded jackets and their diktats from Gauleiters and Kommissars behind closed doors without the consent of the people, you bloody peasants have no right to appeal to the crown for intervention..... you'll just have to take it up the kazoo....

Your only alternative is revolution - one way or the other......

Vote 1 - Grappler Party.  We ARE The People!

The divine right vs. the unholy left. With a Mussie power base in Manchester, Ayatollah Charlie al ibn Mecca has the axe ready to fall.

chimera wrote on Nov 4^th, 2024 at 8:21am:

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 74 Appeal to Queen in Council.   No appeal shall be permitted to the Queen in Council from a decision of the High Court upon any question, howsoever arising, as to the limits inter se of the Constitutional powers of the Commonwealth and those of any State or States, or as to the limits inter se of the Constitutional powers of any two or more States, unless the High Court shall certify that the question is one which ought to be determined by Her Majesty in Council.

In the case of Hocking v. Director-General of the National Archives of Australia. Case No. S262/2019, did the High Court certify that the question ought to be determined by Elizabeth II in Council?

MeisterEckhart wrote on Nov 4^th, 2024 at 10:41am:

chimera wrote on Nov 4th, 2024 at 8:21am: COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 74 Appeal to Queen in Council.   No appeal shall be permitted to the Queen in Council from a decision of the High Court upon any question, howsoever arising, as to the limits inter se of the Constitutional powers of the Commonwealth and those of any State or States, or as to the limits inter se of the Constitutional powers of any two or more States, unless the High Court shall certify that the question is one which ought to be determined by Her Majesty in Council. In the case of Hocking v. Director-General of the National Archives of Australia. Case No. S262/2019, did the High Court certify that the question ought to be determined by Elizabeth II in Council?

How did the Australia Act (1986) affect appeals to Her Majesty in Council?

MeisterEckhart wrote on Nov 4^th, 2024 at 10:41am:

Hocking v. Director-General of the National Archives of Australia, did the High Court certify that the question ought to be determined by Elizabeth II in Council?

The prime minister of the Archives, a colonial outpost in the Antipodes Ocean, went down 6:1. The queen, popularly known as Bloody Elizabeth, had a fire of faggots and thumbscrew prepared, encouraged by the Royal Reserve Regiment and the big wigs of Windsor. It was a close call and Jenny escaped to drive a big garbage truck.

MeisterEckhart wrote on Nov 4^th, 2024 at 10:56am:

How did the Australia Act (1986) affect appeals to Her Majesty in Council?

The British Umpire hears appeals often, usually 'not out'. The Windsor Council handles garbage collection and blocked drains.
Otherwise, s 74 remains the last man standing with backs to the wall, keeping powder dry and bulldog breed.

chimera wrote on Nov 4^th, 2024 at 11:22am:

MeisterEckhart wrote on Nov 4th, 2024 at 10:56am: How did the Australia Act (1986) affect appeals to Her Majesty in Council? The British Umpire hears appeals often, usually 'not out'. The Windsor Council handles garbage collection and blocked drains. Otherwise, s 74 remains the last man standing with backs to the wall, keeping powder dry and bulldog breed.

A direct translation from Mandarin?

For those of us who speak English: The Australia Act (1986) in Australia terminated appeals to Her Majesty in Council.

MeisterEckhart wrote on Nov 4^th, 2024 at 11:34am:

The Australia Act (1986) in Australia terminated appeals to Her Majesty in Council.

..except under s 74 which is as valid today as the rest of the constitution (and more so than Hocking's book).
Were you trained in Moscow to have secret knowledge to prove a case?

chimera wrote on Nov 4^th, 2024 at 12:11pm:

MeisterEckhart wrote on Nov 4th, 2024 at 11:34am: The Australia Act (1986) in Australia terminated appeals to Her Majesty in Council. ..except under s 74 which is as valid today as the rest of the constitution (and more so than Hocking's book). Were you trained in Moscow to have secret knowledge to prove a case?

Section 74 is known in Australian legal circles as a 'dead letter'.

In the case of Hocking v. the NAA, did the High Court certify that the question ought to be determined by Elizabeth II in Council?

If not, what was the High Court's attitude towards the wishes and expectations of Elizabeth II?

'Legal circles' is not 'the Law'. Politically, the court asserts it probably won't use s 74, to suit the pollies.  But one judge can't dictate to future judges, who are enabled to ask for royal decisions. The section is in the constitution as a valid law of Australia.

As the archives in fact are not 'the commonwealth related to a state', the sec is not usable against Hocking. But it's an example of royal power, during 124 years. Whitlam knew about both powers and his lack of power against the GG.

chimera wrote on Nov 4^th, 2024 at 2:40pm:

powers and his lack of power against the GG.

Of course Whitlam knew about the reserve powers - he was a barrister and a QC.

Whitlam once cracked a joke about them at Kerr's expense and in Kerr's presence, that it would be a matter of who shot first: a prime minister or a governor-general.

Those who knew Kerr commented that it was the nascence of Kerr's paranoia that Whitlam would one day have him recalled.

As the Palace letters revealed, it was on this matter that Kerr sought assurances from Elizabeth II that she would not act on any advice to recall him. She could not promise that she would not act on the PM's advice but did offer Kerr comfort in that she would take 'most unkindly' to such advice and would delay his recall for as long as it was possible.

and s 74 applied fully in Whitlam's time, also, giving more clout to the royal fist.
54% voted for such majesty in 1999.

chimera wrote on Nov 4^th, 2024 at 3:53pm:

and s 74 applied fully in Whitlam's time, also, giving more clout to the royal fist. 54% voted for such majesty in 1999.

And? The Palace Letters are not about s 74.

They are about revealing that Elizabeth II had prior knowledge of Kerr's dismissal deliberations, the extent to which she gave comfort and encouragement to Kerr to proceed and the conversations she had with Kerr after the fact.

Sec 74 is additional info about the royal authority in the constitution. The monarch still held discretionary power in that area, as with state court appeals to UK. There is no discretionary politics in the Letters (despite Hocking's inventions). No royal impropriety is proven and only breathless questions are offered.

chimera wrote on Nov 4^th, 2024 at 4:45pm:

Sec 74 is additional info about the royal authority in the constitution. The monarch still held discretionary power in that area, as with state court appeals to UK. There is no discretionary politics in the Letters (despite Hocking's inventions). No royal impropriety is proven and only breathless questions are offered.

The Palace Letters reveal that Kerr invited Elizabeth II into his dismissal deliberations and that she offered comfort and encouragement to Kerr during those deliberations and did not ask whether he had warned the prime minister nor, if she believed he had, asked what the prime minister's advice was.

that's nice

chimera wrote on Nov 4^th, 2024 at 5:43pm:

that's nice

Would've been nice to know for Australians in 1975.

It may have woken up Australians of the day to the true nature of hereditary monarchy.

'Hereditary monarchy' means the person at the top has heirs with hairs ( or her herr). [Kerr's heir]. {the heir is here}

chimera wrote on Nov 4^th, 2024 at 6:09pm:

'Hereditary monarchy' means the person at the top has heirs with hairs ( or her herr). [Kerr's heir]. {the heir is here}

British hereditary monarchy attempts to covertly assert its divine right, while overtly making a show of being neutral and above politics.

This is undeniably correct. It was neutral and above politics while being neutral and above politics. In secret, as Hocking noticed from behind the heavy royal curtains and corgi heirs, the crown was divine and right under the coverts.  She took notes (thousands, with the Queens face on the $1 and $5).  (Hocking can overtly lip-read where most just see a EIIR ).

chimera wrote on Nov 4^th, 2024 at 6:53pm:

This is undeniably correct. It was neutral and above politics while being neutral and above politics. In secret, as Hocking noticed from behind the heavy royal curtains and corgi heirs, the crown was divine and right under the coverts.  She took notes (thousands, with the Queens face on the $1 and $5).  (Hocking can overtly lip-read where most just see a EIIR ).

Can you quote that in the original Mandarin?

這無疑是正確的。它是中立的、凌駕於政治之上的，同時也是中立的、凌駕於政治之上的。秘密地，正如霍金從厚重的皇家窗簾和柯基犬繼承人後面注意到的那樣，王冠是神聖的，就在隱蔽物的下面。她做了筆記（數千張，1 美元和 5 美元上都有皇后區的頭像）。 （霍金可以公開唇讀，而大多數人只看到 EIIR）

chimera wrote on Nov 4^th, 2024 at 7:10pm:

這無疑是正確的。它是中立的、凌駕於政治之上的，同時也是中立的、凌駕於政治之上的。秘密地，正如霍金從厚重的皇家窗簾和柯基犬繼承人後面注意到的那樣，王冠是神聖的，就在隱蔽物的下面。她做了筆記（數千張，1 美元和 5 美元上都有皇后區的頭像）。 （霍金可以公開唇讀，而大多數人只看到 EIIR）

Amazing the unbridgeable divide in context between languages and cultures!

As jibberish in Mandarin as it translates into English!

All bilingual/multilingual speakers confirm that thinking in one language often cannot contextually be rendered into another... and the further the distance between East and West the greater the loss of translatability.

Kerr bought 10 bottles of this for his underhand messages.
https://www.glowpaint.com.au/invisible-ink/#:~:text=Invisible%20ink%20is%20transparent%20Clear,or%20other%20diy%20experimental%20ink

Replies were by telephone to Kerr's garden shed and the queen whispered instructions in Oxford accents. Hocking was forced to invent the words to fill in the middle chapters of her book.

chimera wrote on Nov 4^th, 2024 at 7:21pm:

Kerr bought 10 bottles of this for his underhand messages. https://www.glowpaint.com.au/invisible-ink/#:~:text=Invisible%20ink%20is%20transparent%20Clear,or%20other%20diy%20experimental%20ink Replies were by telephone to Kerr's garden shed and the queen whispered instructions in Oxford accents. Hocking was forced to invent the words to fill in the middle chapters of her book.

See! There it is again! Some things just don't translate from Mandarin to English!

A deer is now a horse!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrqKvu-rqIc

How can it, it's not Chinese. 'Mandarin' is borrowed by Portuguese from the Malay menteri  from the Sanskrit mantri (Indian मंत्री, meaning counselor or minister – etymologically linked to mantra). Portuguese living in Malacca traveled to meet with higher officials in China and referred to them with the familiar term from Malay menteri.
Whitlam was translated down under where Hocking was out of her depth.

chimera wrote on Nov 4^th, 2024 at 7:48pm:

How can it, it's not Chinese. 'Mandarin' is borrowed by Portuguese from the Malay menteri  from the Sanskrit mantri (Indian मंत्री, meaning counselor or minister – etymologically linked to mantra). Portuguese living in Malacca traveled to meet with higher officials in China and referred to them with the familiar term from Malay menteri. Whitlam was translated down under where Hocking was out of her depth.

Ah... OK... Roger that... (What does it all mean??... Don't ask!)

It's best if we don't ask. Hocking has it locked away and the Palace was secretly being silent when publicly being silent. There was neutrality when trying not to be neutral. It's not right but it was. Now we all know.

就說是致敬了為什麼還會有人在那邊比來比去啊😳況且兩首的內容完全不一樣，可以先認真聽一遍詞的內容再來評論嗎?為黑而黑有意思嗎你們🤷‍♂️🤷‍♀️真的覺得差不多姑娘寫出了很多女孩的心聲，也包刮曾經的她也是那樣，曾經因為被說胖、腿粗就14天只喝水不吃飯，到現在可以不在意別人的眼光、酸民的攻擊，個人覺得這首改編不僅講出了許多女孩的心聲，對她而言也是很有意義的一首致敬之作

Just say it’s a tribute, why are there still people competing there? Besides, the content of the two songs is completely different. Can you listen to the content of the lyrics carefully before commenting? Is it interesting to be black for the sake of being black? I really feel that this guy has written the thoughts of many guys, including the fact that he was like that in the past. He only drank water and did not eat for 14 days because he was said to be fat and had thick legs. Now he can no longer care about other people's opinions. I personally feel that this adaptation of "The Attack of the Violent People" not only speaks to the voices of many guys but is also a very meaningful tribute to him.


Ahh... yer, what??

Hocking is interesting on this. The supplementary documents in files raise questions about her, Kerr and the heir.  She is inscrutable, a mandarin and nut job.

chimera wrote on Nov 5^th, 2024 at 5:27am:

Hocking is interesting on this. The supplementary documents in files raise questions about her, Kerr and the heir.  She is inscrutable, a mandarin and nut job.

Can I get noodles with that?

Hocking was sweet but now is just sour.

chimera wrote on Nov 5^th, 2024 at 8:46am:

Hocking was sweet but now is just sour.

Didn't realise you'd been that close to her. Yeast infection?

'Albo, old chap. Charles here. Charles. For our little chat'.
'Er, yeah cool. What is it?'
'Look old boy it's this duty thing. I need to advise and warn you'.
'Wot'
'My reserve powers. I've got reserve powers and'
'It's not the 11th November yet'.
'Quite so. Camilla just showed me the calendar. Look, Albo, just watch it eh, you've been warned, good man'.
'OK. That's it?'
'Cheers for now'.
slam...