This study was presented at the meeting of the Forum for Stable Currencies on October 5th, 2000 by Robert Owen, one of the Directors of SAFE, Struggle Against Financial Exploitation.
Robert Owen ~ THE BANK OF ENGLAND
[House of Lords 5th October 2000]
On 27th July 1694 a private joint-stock association called ‘The Bank Of England’ was formed with a capital of £1.2 million, this capital was ‘loaned’ to the government in consideration of a monitory and banking monopoly over the Kingdom of William III, ergo The United Kingdom. [See Bank of England Act 1694]
The government of Clement Attlee nationalised The Bank of England in 1946, issuing Treasury Notes in the sum of £11,015,100. All the stock was owned by the British Government, although The Bank of England continued as a ‘Royal Charter Company’ with the absolute protection of confidentiality and security afforded by a Royal Charter and The Official Secrets Acts.
Obviously the nationalisation was not welcomed by its share holders or bankers of the day. Wilson’s abrupt resignation as Prime Minister in April 1976 and the new government of James Callaghan had virtually no majority, ‘UK Ltd’ was vulnerable and effectively bankrupt, with double digit annual inflation, 70% over 3 years, incessant strikes, the £ Sterling frequently suspended on international exchange markets, virtual parity with the US$, the ideal time for the share holders to strike back and re-take the Bank of England.
SO is this WHY, on the 6th April 1977 the Bank of England formed the BANK OF ENGLAND NOMINEES LIMITED, (BOEN), a wholly owned subsidiary private limited company, no: 1307478, with 2 of its 100 £1 shares issued and its Memorandum & Articles of Association’s Objectives are;-
“To act as Nominee or agent or attorney either solely or jointly with others, for any person or persons, partnership, company, corporation, government, state, organisation, sovereign, province, authority, or public body, or any group or association of them….”
MELANIE JOHNSON MP, Minister for the Treasury, informed me that “BOEN is a wholly owned subsidiary of BOE, which was granted an exemption by the Minister of State for Trade from the disclosure requirements under Section 27(9) of the Companies Act 1976 , because;
“it was considered undesirable that the disclosure requirements should apply to certain categories of shareholders”.
This answer to a Freedom of Information request provided in 2010 gives a similar answer.
As we have seen above The Bank of England with its Royal Charter Status and Official Secrets Act, has more confidentiality and security than the MoD and is even immune from questions being asked in the House of Commons. So why form a wholly owned ‘NOMINEE’ COMPANY which in 23 years HAS NEVER TRADED and only lodges ‘Short Form’ un-audited accounts ?
I allege that The Bank of England was sometime after 1977 effectively ‘Privatised’, its shares being held in BOEN, thereby making a ‘closed loop’ , i.e. although BOEN is a wholly owned subsidiary of BOE, BOEN has effective control of BOE through the said shares owned by the secret share holders. I am advised that only 50% of the shares were sold, but they have ALL the voting rights ! Share holders appoint directors, look who makes up the ‘Court’ of Directors of The Bank of England, bringing one to the only conclusion that the Bank of England is owned covertly, if not by the banks, then by a higher banking entity which has the interests of the banks at heart, which justifies the rampant and systemic fraud perpetrated upon their customers with arrogance and impunity.
It is said to be the Duty of every Chief Constable to enforce the Law but there is no record of Regina v High St Bank, except, The Queen -v- Barclays Bank Plc, ex-party OWEN ~ which I brought. Police funding stops them from being effective against organised, national, international crime, perpetrated by banks.
In 1997, in the foot steps of Three Rivers District Council, who won their action against the Bank of England for failing to control BCCI, several of us who were casualties of banks made formal complaints against the BOE for not enforcing control over our respective high street banks, but contrary to the Bank’s own Statement of Principles and Banking Acts we were rejected on the grounds that the BOE does not intervene between bank and customer. Within months the BOE complaints staff and department had been transferred to Canary Wharf under the guise of the Financial Services Agency who are unable to act on complaints emanating prior to their formation.
In the Spirit of the Forum for Stable Currencies
Pingback: “Printing Money” means “Printing Credit” these days « Money as Debt
not bad
But The Royal Bank of Scotland plc doesn’t own The Royal Bank of Scotland Group.
A subsidiary company doesn’t own a parent company.
If I bought YouTube, I wouldn’t own Google.
So who owns this BOEN then?
@Superheavyweight:
Re: the BOEN.
I would suggest that based on the present level of research published in the Public Domain about this, I can only conclude that we will never find out without some serious government heavyweight behind legislation bringing to an end the secrecy of this entity.
Although my personal feelings on this matter are that the BoEN is a type of reverse holding company for the BoE. As absurd as this sounds considering that BoEN is a wholly owned subsidiary of BoE, the simple fact that we do not know who the shareholders are or their activities means that control of the BoE could be by those at the BoEN regardless.
If for example there are persons or other legal entities that are common shareholders of both BoE or BoEN shares/stock then it effectively means the BoE has been usurped.
Just some thoughts….
I haven’t researched further. But I suspect that the principle is always the same: “the boys” get together in different guises of ‘private financial corporations’ (PFCs).
I.e the anonymity of corporate law ‘protects’ the individuals.
In Germany, there is a ‘debt secret’ about the beneficiaries of the national debt payments. But in general, one paper published at least: the banks always win.
In theory, the Enforcement of the Bank of England Act 1694 should still hold true. In practice, it takes a lot of disillustionment among a lot of people before that could be achieved…
See http://www.edm1297.info
According to this reply from the Bank of England: http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/28738/response/74019/attach/2/D.pdf
“The shareholders are the Bank and John Footman, who holds his share as nominee on behalf of the Bank”
It also states above this:
“BOEN acts as a nominee company to hold securities on behalf of certain customers.”
I think we all know on here who at least two of the nominees are & guess that there is one nominee who own most of the shares. Just in case you don’t know, read the history of fractional reserve lending.
It is the 2nd paragraph in PeterM’s post that gives us a clue. It is possible that the securities BOEN holds on behalf of its customers are the Bank of England securities. This is a very clever way of legally hiding the identity of the true owners of the BoE. HMRC has powers to obtain information about this but I doubt very much that they will ever use it.
To all you conspiracy theorists. The BOE Noms hold s shares on behalf of certain Customers who for whatever reason don’t want their name to appear on a share register. It could be for Security reasons or to avoid publicity or all manner of things. If a private customer took a secured loan from them and lodged shares as security, these would be registerd in the name of BoE Noms for the duration. All Banks have Nominee companies and do the same thing. So normal Private Banking Business 1 Conspiracy theorists 0
Yes, but you are forgetting that the BoE was Nationalised in 1946. So in light of this do you beleive that any Shareholder or Nominee should remain anonymous when they have a vested interest ina Public Entity?
So normal Private Banking Business 1 ‘Conspiracy theorists’ 1
William Cobbet – a perfect example of an idiot being born every minute.
Possible – however I suggest that you have missed the essence of what is being discussed here. The point is that with any other private bank and any other private company the public would be able to find out who and what was involved.
Hear we are talking about the government owned central bank – why is it so difficult to establish who owns it, where the profits are going and by extension what is going on with the “bail out” of banks and where in all this does the tax payer stand. What need is there for the Bank of England to make a profit out of the tax payer. If you do not see the disparity, in the fact that it is so hard to establish a satisfactory answers surrounding the BOE then I suggest you are naive. Answers are not always liked however they should at least have logic to them and intrinsically make sense – even if we don’t agree with them.
Conspiracy theories arises when there is a lack of transparency and a desire for answers, often resulting in the conclusion that the only reason for the lack of transparency must be to prevent the average Jo from finding out.
I agree with the score line just not the teams:
Private Banking Business 1 Society 0 – Full Time
100% touche…
nice. score probably more Private-Banks-masquerading-as-Government-( ie- people-owned) institutions 9999999999999999999 vs most people, 2 or 3. And it ain’t full-time yet..
Masquerading. Indeed!
Just as ‘public’ schooling is private!
Pingback: A huge deception at heart of the EU - Express
It has been postulated that the B.O.E.N. Ltd hads been established to hide the Queen’s investments. Does anyone know more on this?
Sabine has kindly forwarded your enquiry regarding Bank of England Nominees Limited item I presented in the House of Lords back in October 2000.
Further background is available at:-
http://www.safe-online.org/BANK-of-ENGLAND-FSA-TREASURY.html
&
http://www.safe-online.org/Audio-Clips.html
At the time I was advised, but cannot substantiate that the R’childs were serious investors.
Also that the same formulae was used to acquire the Federal Reserve bank, which explains why every President who has tried to change the situation has been assassinated !
Interestingly the British Treasury in all of its publications refers to the Bank of England as the ‘AGENT’ of the Treasury more than implying that it is not a ‘Department of Government’ ?
Certainly not “Department of Government”. The independence keeps being emphasised anywhere you look and read.
@ William Cobbet – Well sir, if “we” are “all” “conspiracy theorists”, we must be quite learned and researched theorists at that, and ready to set you straight.
Again, theories only exist because the truth is not being told. People criticise what they don’t understand. 9/10, it is a fear based reaction.
most american conspiracy theorists go on about bank of england but what they miss is the reason it was created to win from Catholic Protestant war in europe england lost at this battle and had to rebuild very same time as Battle of the Boyne this is so closly interlinked In 1694 a private institution, the Bank of England, was set up to supply money to the King. £1.2m was raised after losing the Battle of Beachy Head
in twelve days; half of this was used to rebuild the Navy, If goverment
owned the Bank of England would they be in debt to them selfs Most
people Sold a version of history from school and media that never tells them who is in real control of their money so if king made £1.2 m in 12 days shows we are in debt as people to afew familys it is cycles of War and money
The
Bank of Amsterdam the precursor to, the first true central bank what
Wikipedia don’t tell you is why it was set up to win the long standing
War with Catholic spain by issuing notes four times in excess of the
banks asset base, The rise of Funny Money kept value through inflation
The Empire of “The City”: The Secret History of British Financial Power E., C. Knuth
The startling aspect of the dual nature of the British Government has the support of many eminent authorities on the subject, despite the fact that millions of American school textbooks and works of popular reference, and the books of thous…ands of pseudo history experts, have woven a fabric of deceit and created popular acceptance of an illusion and a fallacy by the cumulative live force of constant repetition.
The impeachment of this dual structure of government by Prof. Adams is fully supported by the authoritative “Laws of England” of the Lord of Halsbury, massive work of many huge volumes, and by the specific statements and writings of David Starr Jordan, late president of Stanford University, Gladstone, David Lloyd George, J. Ramsay MacDonald, Vincent C. Vickers, director of the Bank of England and of Vickers-Armstrong armaments works, Harold J. Laski and many others. “Better Times” by the Lloyd George in 1910 is particularly revealing. (See note)
The wide latitude of action of the agents and servants of the CROWN and their remarkable immunity from the interference of English Courts and of English law appears in the “Laws of England” of Lord Halsbury as apparent from a few selected passages as follows:
Vol. 6, page 388, art. 582— … Nor can the Crown, by proclamation or otherwise, make or unmake any law on its own authority apart from Parliament, except in colonies to which representative institutions have not been granted. (This excepts only England, Canada, Australia, Union of South Africa and New Zealand, who between them have only 13% — almost the total white population of 68,000,000 of the Empire — of the people of the British Empire, from the utterly absolute and autocratic rule of the Crown, THE Bank and THE City.) The House of Commons no longer controls the Executive; on the contrary the Executive controls the House of Commons.” (Page 495.) There is a distinction between the Government of Great Britain, which is largely confined to the internal government of the British Isles, and the British Government which controls the British Empire.
Referring to “Great Britain, Banking In” in the Encyclopedia Americana, it appears that the Bank of England is not subject to any control by any governmental agency of Great Britain, and that it is above all government, despite the fact that it is privately owned and its directors are nominated by its proprietors. In the Encyclopedia Britannica of 1891 it is termed “a great Engine of Government.” It is obvious that this privately owned foreign institution is now in grave financial difficulties with its loans and bonds and mortgages disavowed all over the world, and that it is being bolstered by huge funds being syphoned into it out of the treasury of the United States.
The 1943 edition of the Encyclopedia Americana (Vol. 13) makes this stunningly significant statement of the Bank of England, that full partner of the American Administration in the conduct of the financial affairs of all the world: “… Its weakness is the weakness inherent in a system which has developed with the smallest amount of legislative control … its capital is held privately, and its management is not in any way directly or indirectly controlled by the state. On the other hand, during its whole history, it has been more or less under the protection of the state; its development has been marked by successive loans of its capital to the state in return for the confirmation or extension of its privileges, and it still continues to exercise powers and owe responsibilities delegated by the state … The bank of England is controlled by a governor, deputy-governor and a court of 24 directors who are elected by the proprietors on the nomination of the directors …” (This is a description of a privately owned structure of government, sovereign in its own right, and over and above the laws of England. A status admittedly attained by bribing dishonest officials of the Government of the British Isles through the years to gradually extinguish the freedom and rights of the people.)
That the nature of this strange bank is actually that of a secret holding company of colossal size is indicated by a reference in “England’s Money Lords Tory M. P.”, by Simon Haxey, to (page 158) Lancastshire Steel Corporation, subsidiary of the Bank of England.
The World Order A Study in the Hegemony of Parasitism
The history and practices of the parasitic financial elite
— by Eustace Mullins, 1984
Early descriptions of the shareholders of the Bank of England identify them as “a Society of about 1300 persons”. They included the King and Queen of England, who received shares to the value of 10,000 pounds each; Marlborough, who investe…d 10,000 pounds — he also invested large sums from his “commissions” in the East India Co. in 1697, and later became Governor of the Hudson Bay Company, which paid a 75% dividend; Lord Shrewsbury, who invested 10,000 pounds; Godolphin, who invested 7000 pounds — he predicted that the Bank of England would not only finance trade, but would carry the burden of her wars, which was proven true in the next three hundred years. Virginia Cowles writes, in “The Great Marlborough”: “England emerged from the war as the dominant force, because the Bank of England’s credit system enabled her to bear the burden of war without undue strain.”
Other charter subscribers were William Bentinck, later the first Earl of Portland, he had been a page in William of Orange’s household, accompanied William to England in 1670 on his initial visit, handled the delicate negotiations of his marriage with Mary in 1677, and prepared the details of William’s invasion of England. He was given the title of Earl of Portland, and became the most trusted agent of William’s foreign policy. (In 1984, we find the 9th Duke, Cavendish-Bentinck, is chairman of Bayers UK Ltd, and Nuclear Chemie Mittchorpe GMBH, Germany; he also had a distinguished career in foreign service, joining the Foreign Office in 1922; he represented England at the successive Paris, Hague and Locarno conferences, was chairman of joint Intelligence for the Chiefs of Staff 1939-45, and Ambassador to Poland during the critical years of 1945-47, when that country was turned over to the Soviet Union, with England’s surreptitious support.)
The World Order by Eustace Mullins Chapter 1.2: Consolidating the Empire
Bank of England, World War I, RIIA and CFR, Opium Trade, First City
* The House of Orange and the Bank of England
* The Merchants of Death and World War I
* The Post-War World Order: RIIA and CFR
* The Opium Trade and Other Ventures
* First City and Rothschilds, Inc.
The House of Orange and the Bank of England
Like other enterprises with which the Rothschilds have been connected, the Bank of England has been a center of international intrigue and espionage since its founding in 1694. Although the Rothschilds did not become associated with the Bank until 1812, when Nathan Mayer Rothschild increased his fortune 6500 times by taking advantage of false rumors that somehow swept the London Stock Exchange, purporting that England had lost [to Napoleon] at Waterloo. The Bank of England originated in a revolution, when William III, Prince of Orange, drove King James II from the throne. Since the Bank of England Charter was granted by William in 1694, there has never been another revolt against the Crown. The royal family has been secure because the source of money, crucial to a revolution, has remained under control.
King Charles II had managed to retain a shaky position because of support from the Duke of Buckingham (George Villiers), and others whose first names formed the word “CABAL”, introducing a new term for intrigue. His successor, James II, tried to placate the powerful lords of England, but even his longtime supporters, scenting a change of power, began secret negotiations with the Prince of Orange. Wilhelm I, Prince of Orange, had been married several times, to Anne of Saxony, Charlotte de Bourbon, and Princess de Coligny. Today, every ruling house of Europe, as well as those out of power, is a direct descendant of King William, including Queen Juliana of the Netherlands; Margaretha, Queen of Denmark; Olaf V of Norway; Gustaf of Sweden; Constantine of Greece; Prince Rainier of Monaco; and Jean, Grand Duke of Luxembourg, whose son married the daughter of C. Douglas Dillon.
Lord Shrewsbury (Charles Talbot) had been given places by both Charles II and James II; nevertheless, he played a leading role in the revolution. He took 12,000 pounds to Holland to support William in 1688, returned with him, and was made secretary of state. Sidney Godolphin, one of James II’s last adherents, joined with the Duke of Sunderland and the Duchess of Portsmouth in correspondence with William prior to his invasion of England, and was appointed head of the treasury by William. Henry Compton, Earl of Northampton, and Bishop of London, had been removed by James II; he signed the invitation to William to come to England; he was reinstated in his see in 1688; his son Francis became Lord Privy Seal.
John Churchill, first Duke of Marlborough, had entered into negotiations with the Prince of Orange in Oct. 1687, and expressed his readiness to support him in Aug. 1688. To allay James II’s suspicions, Marlborough then signed a renewed oath of fidelity to him Nov. 10, 1688. On Nov. 24, 1688, he joined the forces of William of Orange.
Although William had married Mary, the daughter of James II, and had a legitimate claim to the throne of England, he could not take power as long as James II was on the throne. Therefore, he entered England with a force of 10,000 foot soldiers and 4000 horse, a small force with which to conquer a great kingdom. With him were Churchill, Bentinck, (the first Earl of Portland), Earl of Shrewsbury, and Lord Polwarth, whose descendant is a prominent member of the Anglo-American banking establishment. James II fled to the court of Louis XIV [in France] and was declared abdicated.
Marlborough, ancestor of Winston Churchill (whose former daughter-in-law, Pam Harriman, is the leading power in the Democratic Party) is described in “The Captain General”, by Ivor Brown:
“The Commissioner of Public Accounts found that the Duke of Marlborough had accepted gifts amounting to some 60,000 pounds from Antonio Machado and Sir Solomon de Medina, contractors for bread and wagons for the army abroad, and 2 1/2% of all money allotted for payment of troops, some 175,000 pounds (later revised to 350,000 pounds).”
Marlborough claimed it had all been spent for intelligence, but witnesses testified he could not have spent more than 5000 pounds for this purpose in all of his campaigns. Donald Chandler’s biography of Marlborough points out that “The bread contractors such as Solomon and Moses Medina, Mynheer Hecop, Solomon Abraham, Vanderkaa and Machado, were for the most part Spanish or Dutch Jews of varying reliability and venality.” Chandler says that they consistently gave short weight or added sand to their corn sacks. For a number of years, Medina, as chief army contractor, contributed an annual commission of 6000 pounds a year to Marlborough as his rakeoff on army contracts.
In addition to his English supporters, who were previously loyal to King James II, William brought with him from Amsterdam the group of avaricious financiers who were also the suppliers of his armies. One of his first official acts was the conferring of knighthood on Solomon de Medina. Machado and Pereira provisioned his armies in Spain and Holland; Medina supplied Marborough in Flanders; Joseph Cortissot supplied Lord Galway in Spain, and Abraham Prado supplied the British army during the Seven Year War.
The most important act of William’s reign was his granting of the charter of the Bank of England in 1694, although most of his biographers omit this salient fact. The concept of a central bank which would have the power of note issue, or issuing money, had already taken hold in Europe. The Bank of Amsterdam was started in 1609; its members aided William in his conquest of England. The Bank of Hamburg was chartered in 1619; the Bank of Sweden began the practice of issuing notes in 1661. These banks were chartered by financiers whose ancestors had been bankers in Venice and Genoa. As the tide of world power shifted northward in Europe, so did the financiers. The Warburgs of Hamburg had begun as the Abraham del Banco family, the largest bankers in Venice.
An interesting technique is revealed by the Charter of the Bank of England: it was slipped through as part of a tonnage bill, which was later to become a recognized parliamentary technique. The Charter provides that “rates and duties upon tonnage of ships are made security to such persons as shall voluntarily advance the sum of 1,500,000 pounds towards carrying on the war against France.”
Other European banks, such as the Banks of Genoa, Venice and Amsterdam, were primarily banks of deposit, but the Bank of England began the practice of coining its own credit into money, the beginning of the monetarist movement. The Bank of England soon created a “new class” of moneyed interests in the City, as opposed to the power of the old barons, whose fortunes derived from their landholdings. Of the five hundred original stockholders, four hundred and fifty lived in London. This was the dawn of the preeminence of the “City”, now the world’s leading financial center. For this reason, the Rothschilds identified their key American banks with the code word “City”.
Early descriptions of the shareholders of the Bank of England identify them as “a Society of about 1300 persons”. They included the King and Queen of England, who received shares to the value of 10,000 pounds each; Marlborough, who invested 10,000 pounds — he also invested large sums from his “commissions” in the East India Co. in 1697, and later became Governor of the Hudson Bay Company, which paid a 75% dividend; Lord Shrewsbury, who invested 10,000 pounds; Godolphin, who invested 7000 pounds — he predicted that the Bank of England would not only finance trade, but would carry the burden of her wars, which was proven true in the next three hundred years. Virginia Cowles writes, in “The Great Marlborough”: “England emerged from the war as the dominant force, because the Bank of England’s credit system enabled her to bear the burden of war without undue strain.”
Other charter subscribers were William Bentinck, later the first Earl of Portland, he had been a page in William of Orange’s household, accompanied William to England in 1670 on his initial visit, handled the delicate negotiations of his marriage with Mary in 1677, and prepared the details of William’s invasion of England. He was given the title of Earl of Portland, and became the most trusted agent of William’s foreign policy. (In 1984, we find the 9th Duke, Cavendish-Bentinck, is chairman of Bayers UK Ltd, and Nuclear Chemie Mittchorpe GMBH, Germany; he also had a distinguished career in foreign service, joining the Foreign Office in 1922; he represented England at the successive Paris, Hague and Locarno conferences, was chairman of joint Intelligence for the Chiefs of Staff 1939-45, and Ambassador to Poland during the critical years of 1945-47, when that country was turned over to the Soviet Union, with England’s surreptitious support.)
Other charter subscribers to the Bank of England were:
* the Duke of Devonshire (William Cavendish) who built Chatsworth; he also had signed the invitation to William to assume the throne of England; he was High Steward at Anne’s Coronation in 1702, and was said to lead a profligate private life — (the present duke sold seven drawings in July 1984 for $9.2 million [and] the 11th Duke married Deborah Freeman-Mitford daughter of Baron Redesdale; his present brother-in-law, Baron Redesdale, is vice president of Chase Manhattan Bank)
* the Duke of Leeds, Sir Thomas Osborne, who also signed the invitation to William — he was lord high treasurer and had arranged the marriage of Mary. He was later impeached for receiving a large bribe to procure the charter of the East India Co. in 1691; because of his favored position at court the proceedings were never concluded, and he left one of the largest fortunes in England
* the Earl of Pembroke, (Thomas Herbert), who became the first lord of the admiralty, and later lord privy seal
* the Earl of Carnarvon, who is also Earl of Powis and Earl of Bradford
* Lord Edward Russell, created Earl of Orford 1697; he had joined the service of William in 1683, was appointed treasurer of the Navy 1689, first lord of admiralty 1696-17, and lord justice 1697-1714 (Sir Robert Walpole, the famed British leader, was created Earl of Orford in the second creation)
* William Paterson, usually credited with being the founder of the bank of England — he was forced out within a year
* Sir Theodore Janssen, who invested 10,000 pounds
* Dr. Hugh Chamberlen
* John Asgill, an eccentric writer and pamphleteer
* Dr. Nicholas Barbon, son of Praisegod Barebones, who started the first insurance company in Great Britain
* John Holland, a reputed Englishman who also started the Bank of Scotland in 1695
* Michael Godfrey, who died at Namur, Belgium on his way to Antwerp to establish a branch of the Bank of England — he was the first deputy governor of the Bank of England, and nephew of Sir Edward Godfrey, who was murdered by Titus Oakes in 1678
* Sir John Houblon and twenty members of his family were also early stockholders; Sir John became lord of the admiralty, and Lord Mayor of London; his brother James was deputy governor of the Bank of England
* Salomon de Medina, later knighted by William III
* Sir William Scawen
* Sir Gilbert Heathcote, director of Bank of England 1699-1701, and from 1723-25; he was Sheriff and later Lord Mayor of London, founded the New East India Co. in 1693; his parsimony was ridiculed by Alexander Pope in his quatrains
* Sir Charles Montague, first Earl of Halifax, and Chancellor of the Exchequer — the present Earl is a director of Hambros Bank
* Marquess Normandy, John Sheffield, also held the title of Duke of Buckingham — he is buried in Westminster Abbey
* Thomas Howard, Earl of Arundel, comptroller of the royal household
* Charles Chaplin
* and the philosopher, John Locke.
In his “The Bank of England, A History”, Sir John Clapham notes that by 1721, a number of Spanish and Portuguese Jews had been buying stock in the Bank of England — Medina, two Da Costas, Fonseca, Henriquez, Mendez, Nunes, Roderiquez, Salvador Teixera de Mattes, Jacob and Theodore Jacobs, Moses and Jacob Abrabanel, Francis Pereira. Clapham notes that since 1751 there has been very little trading in Bank of England stock; it has been very closely held for more than two centuries.
The Bank of England has played a prominent role in American history — without it, the United States would not exist. The American colonists considered themselves loyal Englishmen to a man, but when they began to enjoy unequalled prosperity by printing and circulating their own Colonial scrip, the stockholders of the Bank of England went to George III and informed him that their monopoly of interest-bearing notes in the colonies was at stake. He banned the scrip, with the result that there was an immediate depression in the commercial life of the Americas. This was the cause of the Rebellion; as Benjamin Franklin pointed out, the little tax on tea, amounting to about a dollar a year per American family, could have been borne, but the colonists could not survive the banning of their own money.
The Bank of England and the Rothschilds continued to play a dominant role in the commercial life of the United States, causing panics and depressions for the Rothschilds whenever their officials were instructed to do so. When the Second Bank of the United States expired in 1836, and President Jackson refused to renew it, [thus] creating great prosperity in the United States when government funds were deposited in other banks, the Rothschilds punished the upstarts by causing the Panic of 1837. As Henry Clews writes in “Twenty-Eight Years on Wall Street”, p. 157: “The Panic of 1837 was aggravated by the Bank of England when it in one day threw out all the paper connected with the United States.”
By refusing to credit American notes and stocks, the Bank of England created financial panic among the holders of that paper. The panic enabled Rothschild’s agents, Peabody and Belmont, to reap a fortune in buying up depreciated stocks during the panic.
The Bank of England has played a prominent role in wars, revolutions, and espionage, as well as business panics. When Napoleon escaped from Elba in 1815, the London gold market jumped overnight from 4lb.6d to 5lb.7d. The leading buyer was Nathan Mayer Rothschild, who was under orders from the British Treasury to dispatch gold to the Duke of Wellington, grouping to stop Napoleon. After Waterloo, the price of gold dropped.
During the twentieth century, the most important name at the Bank of England was Lord Montagu Norman. His grandfather, George Warde Norman, had been governor of the Bank of England from 1821-1872, longer than any other man; his other grandfather, Lord Collet, was Governor of the Bank of England from 1887-89, and managing partner of Brown Shipley Co. in London for twenty-five years.
In 1894, Montague Norman was sent to New York to work in the offices of Brown Brothers; he was befriended by the W.A. Delano family, and lived with the Markoe family, partners of Brown Bros. In 1907, Norman was elected to the Court of the Bank of England. In 1912, he had a severe nervous breakdown, and was treated by [Carl] Jung in Switzerland. He became deputy governor of the Bank of England in 1916, and later served until 1944 as Governor. The Wall Street Journal wrote of him in 1927:
“Mr. M. Collet Norman, the Governor of the Bank of England, is now head and shoulders above all other British bankers. No other British banker has ever been as independent and supreme in the world of British finance as Mr. Norman is today. He has just been elected Governor for the eighth year in succession. Before the war, no Governor was allowed to hold office for more than two years; but Mr. Norman has broken all precedents. He runs his Bank and his Treasury as well. He appears to have no associations except his employees. He gives no interviews. He leaves the British financial world wholly in the thick as to his plans and ideas.”
The idea that one individual ran the Bank of England to suit himself, with no influences, is too ridiculous to be considered. What about the Rothschilds? What about the other shareholders? Carroll Quigley, in “Tragedy and Hope” notes that: “M. Norman said, ‘I hold the hegemony of the currency.’ — He is called the currency dictator of Europe.”
Lionel Fraser of J. Henry Schroder Wagg notes in his autobiography, “All to the Good”, that he was in charge of Lord Norman’s personal investments. He also notes of the firm of Helbert Wagg, former jewelers from Halberstadt and now a London banking house (later J. Henry Schroder Wagg), “The firm was official brokers on Stock Exchange to the great and all powerful House of Rothschild.” Both Wagg and Schroder had been in business in London for 159 years when they merged in 1960. Another writer notes that Lord Norman frequently consulted with J.P. Morgan before making his Bank of England decisions.
Gordon Richardson, chairman of J. Henry Schroder from 1962-72, then became Governor of the Bank of England from 1972-83, when he was succeeded by Robert Leigh-Pemberton, chairman of the National Westminister Bank, also director of Equitable — he married into the Cecil-Burghley family.
The present directors of the Bank of England are:
* G.W. McMahon, deputy governor since 1964, economic analyst Treasury 1953-57, adviser British Embassy Washington 1957-60
* Sir Adrian Cadbury, chairman Cadbury Schweppes, dir. IBM UK
* Leopold de Rothschild, N.M. Rothschild and Sons, etc.
* George V. Blunden, exec. dir. Bank of England since 1947, served with IMF 1955-58
* A.D. Lochnis, dir. J. Henry Schroder Wagg
* G.A. Drain, member Trilateral Commission, treasurer European Movement, Franco-British Council, British North American Committee, lawyer for many unions and health associations
* Sir Jasper Hollom, has been on the board since 1936
* D.G. Scholey, chairman S.G. Warburg Co., Orion Insurance, Union Discount of London, Mercury Securities, which now owns S.G. Warburg Co. Irwin Holdings
* J.M. Clay, dep. chairman Hambros Bank, chairman Johnson and Firth Brown Ltd
* Hambros Life Assurance
* Sir David Steel, chairman British Petroleum, dir. Kuwait Oil Co., The Wellcome Trust, trustee The Economist (whose chairman is Evelyn de Rothschild)
* Lord Nelson of Stafford, chairman GE Ltd. chairman Royal Worcester Co., Natl. Bank of Australasia, International Nickel, British Aircraft, English Electric, Marconi Ltd. chairman World Power Conference, Worshipful Co. of Goldsmiths, Middle Eastern Assn
* Lord Weir, chairman The Weir Group, chairman Great Northern Investment Trust
* E.A.J. George, exec. dir Bank of England, dir. Gilt-Edged Division Bank of England, IMF 1972-72, Bank for International Settlements 1966-69
* Sir Hector Laing, chairman United Biscuit, Allied Lyons, Royal Insurance
* Sir Alastair Pilkington, chairman Pilkington Bros. Glass, dir. British Petroleum, British Railways Board.
The Bank of England also dominates the Bank of Scotland, whose chairman is Robert Bruce, Lord Balfour; his title Balfour of Burleigh was created in 1607; he is manager of English Electric and Viking Oil; he married the daughter of magnate E.S. Manasseh. Directors of Bank of Scotland include Lord Clydesmuir, also dir. Barclays Bank, and Rt. Hon. Lord Polwarth, director of Halliburton, which interlocks with the Rothschild First City Bank of Houston and Citibank, Imperial Chemical Industries, Canadian Pacific, and Brown and Root Wimpey Highland Fabricators, which interlocks with George Wimpey PLC, largest construction firm in the British Empire, whose 44 companies have revenues of 1.2 billion pounds per year. Lord Polwarth’s daughter married Baron Moran, High Commissioner of Canada, who previously served as Ambassador to Hungary and to Chad; Baron Moran’s daughter married Baron Mountevans, manager of Consolidated Goldfields.
Directors of George Wimpey PLC included S.S. Jardine; Viscount Hood, who is chairman Petrofina UK, and director J. Henry Schroder Wagg, and Union Miniere; and Sir Joseph Latham, chairman Ariel International, director Deutsches Kreditbank.
Wimpey Co. interlocks with Schroder Ltd, parent of J. Henry Schroder Wagg. The Earl of Airlie (David Ogilvy) is chairman of Schroder; he married Virginia Ryan, grand-daughter of Otto Kahn and Thomas Fortune Ryan; The Earl is also director of Royal Bank of Scotland; directors of Schroder include Lord Franks, director of the Rockefeller Foundation, the Rhodes Trust, and Kennedy Center; he is a former Ambassador to the United States; G.W. Mallinkrodt; Sir E.G. Woodruffe of Unlever; and Daniel Janssen of the Bank of England.
The Merchants of Death and World War I
One of the great Rothschild hoaxes was the “disarmament movement” of the early 1930s. The idea was not to disarm, but to persuade the nations to junk what arms they had so they could later be sold new ones. “The merchants of death”, as they were popularly known in those days, were never more than errand boys for their true masters, “the bankers of death”, or, as they were also known, “the Brotherhood of Death”.
In 1897, Vickers, in which Rothschilds had the largest holding, bought Naval Construction and Armament Co., and Maxim Nordenfeldt Guns & Ammunition Co. The new Vickers-Maxim Co. was able to test its products in the Spanish-American War, which was set off by J. & W. Seligman Co. to obtain the white gold (sugar) of Cuba; the Boer War of 1899-1901, to seize the gold and diamond fields of the Witwatersrand, and the Russo-Japanese War of 1905, designed to weaken the Czar and make the Communist Revolution inevitable. These three wars provided the excuse for tooling up for the mass production of World Wars I & II. In 1897, an international power trust was formed, consisting of DuPont, Nobel, Koln, and Kottweiler, which divided the world into four distinct sales territories.
The chairman of Vickers, Sir Herbert Lawrence, was director of Sun Assurance Office Ltd; Sun Life Assurance, and chairman the London committee of the Ottoman Bank; directors included Sir Otto Niemeyer, director of the Bank of England, and the Anglo International Bank; S. Loewe, the German arms magnate, Loewe & Co.; Sir Vincent Caillard, President of the Ottoman Debt Council, financial expert on the Near East; and Sir Basil Zaharoff, the “mystery man of Europe”.
The highwater mark of “the merchants of death” hoax was reached in the Nye Committee Hearings of 1934, copies of which are invariably missing in government libraries. Alger Hiss was investigator and counsel for the Committee. Typical was Chairman Nye’s questioning of Mr. Carse of the Electric Boat Co. (a subsidiary of Vickers):
Chairman NYE: In 1917, Mr. Carse, you drafted a letter to help Zaharoff avoid paying income tax on your commissions to him of $766,852. There is Exhibit 24, a letter dated Sept. 21, 1917, addressed to Mr. H.C. Sheridan, Washington, D.C. Who is Mr. Sheridan, Mr. Carse ?
CARSE: He owns the Hotel Washington. At that time he was the agent of Vickers Ltd. in this country, and he was also a representative of Zaharoff. Mr Sheridan handled Mr. Zaharoff’s income tax with White and Case.
CHMN: Did you know that this was false, that this omission of a million dollars referred to was actually Sir Basil Zaharoff’s income ?
CARSE: No, I did not know anything about Zaharoff’s income.
CHMN: But you have told us that a letter by Zaharoff six weeks earlier that 82,000 francs he received was his own personal income.
CARSE: I do not know what Zaharoff did in his business. He did not tell me.
CHMN: Did Zaharoff succeed in escaping the payment of income tax to the United States ?
CARSE: I believe there was some settlement made. Sheridan handled it….. Zaharoff was never a stockholder insofar as I ever knew. The men who handle very large stock do not put the stock in their own names.
CHMN: Zaharoff wrote to you 19 May, 1925: ‘I desire no thanks for what I have done, because I am bound to attend to the interest of my firm of Vickers and the Electric Boat Co. in both of which I am a stockholder.’
CARSE: I know he told me that, but I was never able to trace anything.”
Sen. Clark then pursued questioning on how the armaments firms and oil companies promoted wars:
CLARK: So this whole occasion of arming Peru, and of the revolution in Bolivia on the basis of arming against Chile was based on erroneous rumor ?
MR. SPEZAR: That is my impression.
CLARK: You wanted to interest the large oil companies in financing an armament program for South America
CARSE: I was willing to present any proposition the government might approve with regard to any oil companies which might be interested.
The Nye Committee frequently came back to Zaharoff’s activities, referring to him as “a kind of superspy in high social and influential circles”. For many years he exercised great influence on Prime Minister Lloyd George of England. Zaharoff, who began his career as a brothel tout and underworld tough, arranged for Lloyd George to have an affair with Zaharoff’s wife.
Arthur Maundy Gregory, an associate of Lloyd George, was also a Zaharoff agent. Maundy Gregory for many years regularly peddled peerages in London clubs; knighthoods, not hereditary, were 10,000-12,000 lbs.; baronetcies went for as high as 40,000 lb., of which he paid Lloyd George a standard 5000 lb. each. Maundy Gregory was also closely associated with Sir Basil Thompson in British counter-espionage.
Zaharoff, who was born in 1851 in Constantinople, married one Emily Ann Burrows of Knightsbridge. Maundy Gregory then introduced Emily Ann to the [sexually] insatiable Lloyd George. From that time on, he was at Zaharoff’s mercy. Although Zaharoff was closely associated with Lloyd George throughout World War I until 1922, when their association effectively ended Lloyd George’s political career, the name Zaharoff appears nowhere in Lloyd George’s extensive Memoirs. Lloyd George’s political career came to an end after Zaharoff persuaded him to help the Greeks against Turkey in 1920, a disastrous adventure which brought about Lloyd George’s downfall from political power. George Donald McCormick, in “The Mask of Merlin”, the definitive work on Lloyd George, states:
“Zaharoff kept him (Lloyd George) closely informed on the Balkans. During the war, Zaharoff was sent on various secret missions by Lloyd George. The Big Three, Wilson, Lloyd George and Clemenceau, met in Zaharoff’s home in Paris. On one occasion, Zaharoff went to Germany (in 1917) on Lloyd George’s personal instructions, disguised in the uniform of a Bulgarian Army doctor. Clemenceau later said, ‘The information which Zaharoff secured in Germany for Lloyd George was the most important piece of intelligence of the whole war.'”
Zaharoff was awarded the Order of British Empire in 1918 for this mission. McCormick also notes, “Zaharoff had interests in Briey furnaces of the Comite des Forges. Throughout the war no action was taken against Briey or nearby Thionville, a German area vital to the German army. Orders to bombard Briey were cancelled on orders of Zaharoff.” M. Barthe protested this event in a speech to the French Parliament January 24, 1919.
McCormick found that Zaharoff had made some interesting confessions to close associates. He boasted to Rosita Forbes, “I made wars so that I could sell arms to both sides.” He offered astute political advice to Sir Robert Lord Boothby, “Begin on the left in politics, and then, if necessary, work over to the right. Remember it is sometimes necessary to kick off the ladder those who have helped you to climb it.”
In addition to his Vickers and Electric Boat stock, Zaharoff had large holdings in other armaments manufacturers, Krupp and Skoda. The Skoda Works of Czechoslavakia were controlled by the powerful Schneider family of Schneider-Creusot, headed by Eugene Schneider, whose grand-daughter married the present Duke of Bedford. The Nye Committee found that Vickers interlocked with Brown Boveri of Switzerland, Fokker, Banque Ottomane, Mitsui, Schneider, and ten other armaments firms around the world. Vickers set up a torpedo manufacturing firm, Societe Francasies des Torpilles Whitehead, with the former Whitehead Co., whose owner, James B. Whitehead, then became English Ambassador to France. Frau Margareta von Bismarck was a director of Societe Francasies, as was Count Edgar Hoyos of Fiume.
At its peak in the 1930s, the Vickers network included Harvey Steel, Chas. Cammell & co. shipbuilding, John Brown & Co., Krupp and Dillinger of Germany, Terni Co. of Italy, Bethehem Steel and Electric Boat in the U.S., Schneider, Chatillon Steel, Nobel Dynamite Trust, and Chilworth Gunpowder Co. The trustee for the debentures of the armaments firms was Royal Exchange Assurance Co. of London, of which E. Roland Harriman of Brown Bros Harriman was a director.
As First Lord of the Admiralty, Winston Churchill obligingly changed the fuel of the entire English fleet from coal to oil, as a favor to the Samuel family which owned Royal Dutch Shell.
The most revealing works on the armaments dealers, the Nye Committee Hearings, and “Merchants of Death” are now fifty years old. On p. 167 of “Merchants” we find that:
“The Societe Miniere de Penarroya controls the most important lead mines of the world, accounting for one-eighth of the world’s production. Since 1833 the French bankers, the Rothschilds, have controlled these mines, but in 1909 the Rothschild Bank entered into an alliance with the Metallgeschaft of Frankfurt, the company in which both the Kaiser and Krupp were heavily interested. This company remained under German and French control for about two years of the war. At the outbreak of hostilities, 150,000 tons of lead were shipped from these mines to Germany, via Switzerland. When shipments to France were resumed, the price was raised to such an extent that it more than doubled the price which the English paid for their lead. Free trade between Germany and France in important chemicals, for powder, etc. continued; the Swiss supplied both sides with electric power. All along their frontier great powerhouses sprang into being, facing Germany from Italy, producing iron, bauxite, chemicals and power. Zeiss products were exported to Britain throughout the war.”
Dr. Ellis Powell told an audience at Queens Hall, London, March 4, 1917:
“At the beginning of the war many thousands of German reservists were allowed to return to Germany although our Fleet could have stopped them. German individuals, firms and companies went on trading merrily in British names, collecting their debts, and indirectly, no doubt, financing German militarism. At the very moment when Germans were destroying our property by Zeppelin bombs we were actually paying them money instead of taking their holdings as part compensation for damage done. In January 1915 came the vicious decision by Lord Reading (Rufus Isaacs) and the Appeal Court, according to which the Kaiser and Little William Co. was a good British company, capable of suing the King’s own subjects in the King’s own courts …. The uninterrupted activity in this country of the Frankfurt Metal Octopus is not an accident … Let me analyze one lurid case, which has stirred public indignation and anger to its depths. I mean the impudent survival of the German banks. We have now been at war nearly three years. Yet their doors are still open. They sent large quantities of bullion to Germany after the war started.”
There was a remarkable amount of goodwill and free trade continuing during World War I among the warring nations. Of course the Americans did not wish to be left out of the great outpouring of ‘goodwill’ in which forty million people were killed. It was not enough that the Americans were financing the war through their Federal Reserve System and the personal income tax, which, as Cordell Hull so aptly put it in his Memoirs, “had been passed in the nick of time” before the outbreak of the war; nor was it enough that the Americans were feeding the “Belgians”, actually the Germans, through the Belgian Relief Commission, so that the war could be prolonged until the United States became a belligerent. Concerned Americans dedicated themselves to the proposition that American boys should be killed in the trenches with the British, the French, the Germans and other nationalites.
The warmongers set up three principal organizations to force the United States into World War I — the Council on National Defense, the Navy League, and the League to Enforce Peace. The Council on National Defense was authorized by act of Congress August, 1916, although there was no nation on earth known to be contemplating any attack on the United States.
Pancho Villa had led a small group of bandits against Columbus, New Mexico, but this raid was hardly an occasion for national mobilization. It was a retaliatory strike because of the actions of New York bankers in Mexico — the Warburgs held the bonds of the National Railways of Mexico; George F. Peabody and Eugene Meyer and Cleveland H. Dodge owned the copper mines of Mexico; Seligman & Co. owned Electric Power and Light of Mexico. The Mexican Revolution was an uprising against President Porfirio Diaz, who had collaborated profitably with the Warburgs and Rockefellers for years. Percy N. Furber, president of the Oil Fields of Mexico Ltd. told C.W. Barron:
Wars are carefully staged productions and they did what they supposed to do they had a good audience so they successful, to say they had one philosophy of government against another is total nonsense, These are World Order production’s, each side is set up to perform in a certain manner outcome was always predetermined a staged production kinda like a Soap opera. You ask that question to one thousand Britons, and I kid you not, all of them will say that it is owned by the Government. They would be wrong.
The people wielding this power see the world’s financial crisis as their moment of opportunity to seize greater power. The scary part of that is that hardly a living soul even knows they exist. Now that’s real power.
What fascinating comments, Robin!
THANK YOU VERY MUCH INDEED!!!
Am currently exploring the ‘real’ power of Twitter to alert people to an attack on Berlin a la 9/11 – foreseen for this Sunday. http://twishort.com/ac4vj
wow this is the best i’ve read in a long time.
Backtracking to 1694…… It seems important that the original charter of the B of E was for a twelve year duration only. It was many times renewed, but not without controversy. Here is a precedent for fixing a termination date for every incorporated company, charging them annually for the inestimable privilege of operating in what Adam Smith called the ‘Golden Highway’ of trade in beautiful peaceful credit-respecting England. A Renewable Termination Date would give a sanction to be used for unethical behaviour by companies, banks etc. Money from the licence would easily pay off the national debt. c.f. Goldman S,’s profits of $12bn and salries of $16bn. James .
WOW, that’s really useful / constructive / fascinating / interesting, James!
Any suggestion for how to take this forward???
On the 15/08/2011, I started a petition on the e,gov website site titled
“Full Exposure & Purpose of the Bank of England Nominees Ltd”
The more people sign this on line petition the more weight it will carry.
BOEN appears to have remained dormant since it existed. Perhaps one day it will protect individuals exposure who may become the target of unscrupulous utterly evil mobsters, some decisions strategic arragements may need to be secret.. for instance if China was underpinning the BofE through some friendly arrangement… SE Asia has a reputation of people being abducted especially children… this may protect welcome partners who fund the reserves that fight off an attack on UK£Sterling….
you said;
“BOEN appears to have remained dormant since it existed”
…which is complete rubbish. This company was only recently released from its exception under the Secrecy Act (and I may add, very quietly and not publicized which is even more telling), and THEN it announced it was Dormant. It also is now completely immune from AUDIT because of its Dormancy Status. So your comment that it was dormant from its exception is ludicrous unless you work for GCHQ and are a Snowden wanna be. The fact that there is evidence of Share Ownership showing up many times with BoEN as the Listing since 1977 proves your comment to be fallacious. This Account was used to shield investments through the Crown Dependency Tax Haven Shadow Banking Jurisdictions that HRH is the Sovereign for. HRH has closed the usage of the company because her new Venetian like Empire has already fleeced its prey and laundered its proceeds through to her proxy owners. The World Debt restructuring will hide all of the past fraud, her crimes will go unanswered, and her minions will be in charge of their Lions share of the Worlds 1’s and 0’s … a digital straitjacket that nobody will escape save for some kind of Debt reset and/or Revolution (Which her minions will most likely control also)… oh, and don’t forget the hoards of morons such as yourself that will help defend her for no reason other than you are a dupe and/or have stockholm syndrome, you would not be alone on that one. Libor, Isdafix, HSBC and RBS, Barclays … scandal after scandal and there is still a reservoir of dupes like you to defend these Plantation Owners … wake up and smell the coffee … for Gods sake, please wake up!!!
Pingback: What’s so dishonest about our money system? « Money as Debt also known as Credit
regardless of who owns it (there is more digging to be done, which as people have said says something in itself,) if the main purpose of a central bank is to get the economy going for all the people who live here, why charge any interest at all? i mean, if i am starting or expanding my business, would it not be easier if i only had to pay back the principle? why should someone somewhere make a profit from issuing the pieces of paper i need (to create things people actually need and jobs to buy them with,) without doing a thing themselves, other than be the person that has the ‘rights’ to issue the paper? Doesn’t matter who owns it (and i suspect it’s not us,) its functions are only useful to a very few people. too many insane wars, assassinations, sudden price inflations, and media distortions (did you know Iceland had a revolution in the last couple of years?) for there not to be something up with this strange new world. DOES the Matrix have us?
Yes, yes, welcome to to the 99% who’re waking up to what’s dishonest about our money system! See http://moneyasdebt.wordpress.com/2011/07/03/whats-so-dishonest-about-our-money-system/
Urgh, nutters, it’s owned by
GOVERNOR & CO. OF THE BANK OF ENGLAND
50.00% 1.00 GBP 1 × 1.00 GBP Ordinary
JOHN RICHARD EVELEGH FOOTMAN
50.00% 1.00 GBP 1 × 1.00 GBP Ordinary
Simple bit of research would have answered that for yourself.
Pingback: OPEN CORPORATES open the gates to 834 Royal Charter Companies – the ticket to immunity from prosecution | In the Spirit of the Forum for Stable Currencies
Thousands of people, B of E staff, auditors, government officials, staff working for the “shareholders”, etc., must have been involved in this fantasy “conspiracy theory” over the years – and not a single whistle-blower!
Yes, yes. The big question is: do they KNOW or “father forgive them, for they don’t know what they’re doing”…
I agree unlikely to be a fantasy conspiracy, however it doesn’t change why is it so hard to get information about the subject, why the road blocks, why the secrecy? Why the complexity? Why can nobody appear to give an satisfactory description to the history and structure of BoE. Simply to dismiss these questions as if they are not reasonable, is to my mind seeing things with a very narrow view.
The obvious question is why was this company set up in the first place? If there are all these alleged clandestine wheelings and dealings going on, wouldn’t suspicions be aroused? The “official” objectives of the company are 100% believable – to offer similar facilities to those provided by a nominees account with a stockbroker. I use a nominees account for my share dealings (more to cut down on paperwork than to retain my anonymity), but I am not a secret shareholder in my stockbroker!
P.S. Haven’t you discovered Houblon Nominees Ltd, another dormant subsidiary of the Bank of England, more discretely named after its first Governor?
David Icke owns the Bank of England and all other central banks. He invented the shape-shifting extraterrestrial reptiles to distract attention from his fiendish plot to rule the world in league with all ex-Coventry City goalies. Google “Steve Ogrizovic world domination” for proof.
To set the record strait the accounts for the Bank of England are freely available from their website:
Click to access 2013boeaccounts.pdf
As can be seen from the second paragraph on page 50 the owner of BoE is referred to as “shareholder” (ie singular). Page 95 (note 30) identifies this singular shareholder as being HM Treasury. Page 73 (note 15) discloses the fact that the BoE has a number of subsidiaries “which are wholly owned” – that is to say they are 100% owned by BoE which is itself 100% owned by HM Treasury. Included in the list of subsidiaries is Bank of England Nominees.
The accounts of BoEN are themselves freely available from sites such as
http://companycheck.co.uk/ The accounts show that BoEN is dormant (ie totally inactive), holds no investments and is 100% owned by BoE.
Hence the comment:
“I allege that The Bank of England was sometime after 1977 effectively ‘Privatised’, its shares being held in BOEN, thereby making a ‘closed loop’ , i.e. although BOEN is a wholly owned subsidiary of BOE, BOEN has effective control of BOE through the said shares owned by the secret share holders”
is shown to be totally inaccurate.
Incidentally the main article in common with many alleging that BoE is owned by Rothschilds (or others) makes reference to “the disclosure requirements under Section 27(9) of the Companies Act 1976”. The Companies Act 1976 was in fact replaced by the Companies Acts of 1981, 1985, 1989 & 2006.
As can be seen from the above the information is far from secret and is well and truly in the public domain and freely available.
Who ‘educated’ your thinking and analytical skills?
Who paid you to write this comment?
Your points are correct, but could you please define what the Legalese meaning of ‘inactive’ or ‘dormant’ means as applies to ‘transactions’ being undertaken by BOEN (or subsidiaries) on behalf of 3rd parties where BOEN itself simply acted as the Trustee and DID NOT at any stage in such transactions take ownership of any Capital or Equity Certificates that were transferred using its name???
As such would BOEN and its subsidiaries be able to claim indefinitely that they were ‘INACTIVE’ even though they may be providing a Service (albeit free of any PUBLICLY VISIBLE Charges and/or Fees) that acts as a Legal Firewall to cloak certain ‘special’ transactions for ‘special’ people within the British Banking Universe??? Is BOEN a service for hire in a Dark-Pool financial sector? Does it swim with sharks from Luxembourg, or Jersey, or Liechtenstein in a Dark-Pool of ‘Old Money’?
The fact that BOEN Accounts themselves do not handle actual Capital or Equity Certificates in any of their accounts is not the issue, the issue is that they provide a Legal Firewall to specially selected people to transfer Capital around without any Legal proceedings ever being able to probe into the Amounts being dealt with and the Identities of the Beneficial Owners or true Owners.
Legalese Smoke and Mirrors is a profession in The City, but some of us in the Public are sick and tired of the fact that people such as yourself believe we are all stupid and will accept the ‘exceptions for the boys’ (or girls) scenario that Britain currently operates under with such Monarchical Anachronistic Privileges.
oh, it’s ‘inactive’ … or … ‘dormant’ … do you take us all for #$%&ing fools? Obviously so. It has been inactive/dormant long enough then to be wound up and closed. There is only one place that anachronisms belong, in the garbage bin of history, but not before an audit is done to identify ALL Transactions within the British Banking Universe that have been processed USING BOEN as their Trustee … but of course such an investigation would only ever be part of a White Wash years after the Transactions wound down and were sent to some other Dark-Pool, and Records Archiving Laws had seen such records destroyed/wiped … nothing to see here, move along people.
AUDIT: Amounts, Owners, and Uses, and my, my, what a story that would tell about who really runs these Unfortunate Isles.
Hi – Thanks for your detailed response on the Bank of England. I have a friend that has bought into a lot of the conspiracies around the Bank. He did a Google search for UK companies, and found the Bank of England listed as a cmpany with company number RC000042. This is supposed to be proof that the bank is secretly making profits from the public. Do you have an explanation as to why the bank is registered under this number as a company? Thanks!
(Swiveling) EyesWideOpen, are you suggesting that stockbroker’s nominee accounts should also be made transparent? Are you suggesting that everyone’s bank statements should be put in the public domain? Who knows, you could be a shape-shifting extraterrestrial reptile, receiving regular payments from the planet Nibiru to undermine the Earth’s financial systems, ready for the alien conquest.
Strawman argument as usual; you must be a University Trained Text Book type.
Are you suggesting that NOBODY’S financial transactions should be visible to ANY Legal Body under any circumstances? (This is the opposite of your Strawman, but is itself a Strawman) How would anti money laundering function? How would anybody ever be able to use the so called Justice system to question financial conduct?
The current system creates a Firewall for Specific Circumstances for Special People … this is Legal Apartheid.
ALL Stockbrokers Nominee Accounts can be cracked open under legal pressure if their transactions are suspect, so your criticism does not even address the point I was making, which is probably why you added ‘Nibiru’ and ‘Reptile’ into the comment; because your criticism was so weak you needed to gather some sticks big enough for your Strawman. A pretty weak effort but all too common in today’s world.
BOEN and Associated Subsidiaries attached to it’s Legal Structure are PROTECTED from ALL investigations and scrutiny at the highest level. The Queen has PARAMOUNT Royal Prerogative attached to this Legal Device, which many other countries would not tolerate. This Legal Loophole is specifically linked to Royal Patronage; not much changes after centuries of financial apartheid in the UK, and the hoards of text book trained sock puppets such as yourself are never in short supply. Become a Tory if you are not already one, they like to build weak Strawman arguments. Even New Labour work for The City anyway, so they all serve the same master, the only difference is that the Emperor Has No Clothes anymore, but you are still standing around admiring the view aren’t you? Wait until the ZIRP comes to an end as needs be, then see how short of clothes all the Emperors actually are, and how fraudulent the under infrastructure of Western Finance truly is, and how Legal Devices such as BOEN played a massive part in the invisible world of Dark Pool Finance (Not that we will ever get that info after the record retention periods lapse and the dirty deals associated with BOEN are hidden for all time)
Secrets should disappear. This history of anonymous societies and secret shareholders is also something that is dirty, point. Liberalism and bankerism say they are freedom fighters and clean people, why secrets? Please be sincere, say the truth and we don’t be in need of thinking about conspiracies. Remember “Glasnot”? Glasnot made or helped dissapear the corrupted communist sistem, but now we need “Glasnot” in the capitalist world.
EyesWideOpen, Unless you can produce hard evidence to the contrary, which would stand up in a court and convince even the most hardened skeptic, you MUST be a shape-shifting extraterrestrial reptile, receiving regular payments from the planet Nibiru to undermine the Earth’s financial systems, ready for the alien conquest. Isn’t that how conspiracy theorists’ minds work? Do you believe that Princess Diana was killed by the Royal Family or that she faked her own death? Or both?
@Rational John
Oh, your counter arguments are so strong. Your resort to strawman comes so quickly that it exposes your intellectual inadequacy all too easily.
The 2 Nominee Cmpanies nested in the BoE (Houblon and BoEN) are not like any other Nominee Co in the UK as they are Wholly Owned Subsidiaries of the BoE, thus they are attached to the BoE Royal Charter and are covered by the Official Secrets Act. The ‘Disclosure Exemptions’ which have been removed are just window dressing because of the recent changes to BoE legal status, ie, Total Independence from Westminster. The BoE and BoEN create a Legal Attachment that can be dovetailed with Jersey and the Isle of Man to completely shroud any of their dealings (and they claim ‘dormancy’; I have a bridge I would like to sell you), like NO OTHER Nominee Company can achieve. Your previous comparison of BoEN with other commercial Nominee structures reveals your complete lack of understanding of the UK legal system as pertains to Crown Prerogative. You revel in your ignorance however, which I can assure you makes you one of the majority, so don’t feel like you are alone, there is a nation of fools behind you; you are one of the ‘in crowd’.
Your arguments are about as superficial and childish as they need to be to maintain the Worlds Best Standard in selling bull sh*t to the public; have you considered a professional career as a journalist, lawyer or accountant in the City of London? You would fit in well. Go join the sinking ship, you will have fun on the way down.
The ECB and BaFin are having fun cracking the City open for its many secrets and crimes, so when the Whore has no clothes and everyone can inspect her many diseases go give her a big kiss, she is your mother, your lover, your beautiful heart of darkness.
Rational John – much of the hard evidence you want is been hidden and for a reason – that’s the point!. But you are also ignoring the hard eveidence that is staring you in the face. Whether you are being paid to take your stance or just don’t get it, I find it very sad and feel sorry for you. It is a bit of a leap from being concrened about the US and UK paying interest on their OWN money to shape-shifitng ETs. You clearly don’t undersand (or acknowledge) the history and how much bankers control the world. They don’t care about us – AT ALL.
You only have to read quotes from former US presidents and look at the timeline of when they were assassinated compared to the re-privatisation of the US banking system to see there is a serious problem. Why is the Federal Reserve privately owned? (Why “Federal” actually? There is nothing Federal about it and was named so because of the hostility towards the old name). Why is there so much secrecy about the ultimate beneficiaries? Why does a “public” body like the BoE need a secret, immune company? Why do the central banks need to have a Swiss bank (the Bank of International Settlements) which it owns and which is immune from checks, tax, etc.?
If these questions were answered to everybody’s satisfaction, we could all talk about other things like: How could anyone possibly believe Pricness Diana was killed when she was about to marry into the Saudi royal family? And why does it matter that the Rothcshilds are Illuminati?
The US will take action against any state that dares to sell oil in a currency other than the US$ – that is why they reinvaded Iraq and it is what happened in Lybia. Why? Because of the bankers who own the Federal Reserve. Next up: Venezuela – they are selling oil in their own currency – hold on tight for US Government’s deep concern for the human rights of the Venezuelan people under the current regime followed by an overthrow or coup.
Wake up Rational John – just take step back and look at the big picture.. Do you think WWI and WWII were “goodies against baddies”….it would be funny if it wasn’t so sad.
Real World, Keep that tinfoil hat firmly on – try some superglue. I’m at a loss as to what to recommend for your hyper-swiveling eyeballs.
“Nationalisation was an election commitment of Clement Attlee, the Labour leader, in the build up to the July 1945 election.
“The first organisation to be nationalised was the Bank of England in 1946. This had been owned by private individuals since 1694. However, by 1946, the Bank had worked very closely with the Treasury and few complained about what seemed to be a natural move – bringing two bodies that worked together under government control.”
.
.
A bit boring, but then history always has been. You can’t beat a bit of fiction to get those eyeballs swiveling.
I don’t think it’s boring to read about the institutionalisation of receiving ‘passive income’ from the one institution that originated the power to create money from thin air and charge interest for it, especially the Government…
Usury is a deadly sin in Islam!
Read The Biggest Secret by David Icke. It answers many of the questions.
The bank hath benefit of interest on all moneys which it creates out of nothing. – William Paterson
“I care not what puppet is placed on the throne of England to rule the Empire. The man who controls Britain’s money supply controls the British Empire and I control the British money supply.” – Nathan Rothschild
Why is this type of news regarding the Bank of England and the Fed in the USA reported in the Guardian?
You mean why is it NOT reported? Because journalists do NOT understand either the nature of money made from thin air or the camouflage created by economists.