Anthony Blunt Soviet spy and courtier told colleagues he was illegitimate child of George V

[Jan Klimkowski]

Charles wrote in the other Blunt thread here:

http://www.deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/...php?t=1764

One cannot understand any of this absent the appreciation of the so-called third alternative to the conventional Cold War construct -- what George Michael Evica referred to as the "treasonous cabal" of intelligence operatives whose masters were above Cold War differences.

This third force is at work throughout the Philby layers -- and in so many other places.

I'm bearing this in mind whilst considering what it would mean if Blunt was the illegitimate son of British King George V.

During WW1, HG Wells criticized the "alien and uninspiring court" of George V. Of course, the "British royal family" was in fact a bunch of Germans, aka the House of Saxe-Coburg, squatting and lording it in London.

In 1917, George V changed the family name of the British royal family from Saxe-Coburg to Windsor. An early example of rebranding, since adopted by numerous multinationals from the United Fruit Company to Blackwater, who have been caught red-handed in disgraceful and shameful behaviour.

In addition, George V's mother was the sister of the mother of Tsar Nicholas II of Russia. Can you tell British King and Russian Tsar apart in the picture below?

If Blunt was really a blood member of the octopus-like, bloodsucking, "pan-European royal family", would he really have been a communist sympathiser, betraying his country and his blood family out of a self-claimed hatred of Nazism?

It makes little sense.

Unless and until one considers the "treasonous cabal" hypothesis.