Yeah but that’s what I’m also getting at. It’s the kind of ritualised control that’s done in a very baroque way and in total plain sight, but nevertheless slips

Yeah but that’s what I’m also getting at. It’s the kind of ritualised control that’s done in a very baroque way and in total plain sight, but nevertheless slips under the radar or virtually everybody, or the confusion around it leads to even articles like the one posted thinking that “King Charles” owns those lands, when in reality it’s a corporation he’s the frontman for, same as he’s the frontman for the British state. Being the frontman for one isn’t identical with being the frontman for the other, yet hardly anyone even notices, including the author of the article. What I’m saying isn’t even controversial, it’s simple to look up. I’m not some “believer” in a conspiracy. It’s just that how an entity such as “The Crown” wields its power is done in a way that confuses almost everyone, because it’s not really an entity like any other, being some hybrid of government, corporation, trust, club, society, and one whose members all do other things and are embedded in other roles in the state, so it’s both clear and in plain sight while actually being totally weird and hidden. Just go to the Square Mile in London - you’re in London and not, both at the same time, and there’s no passport control, but it’s nevertheless some kind of alternate domain that’s privately, not state, controlled at its fundamental level. It’s not woo woo, it’s just how it operates, and has been doing for about 1000 years. See also the Dutch East India Company - a private company / entity that acted as if it was a state, because it had the backing of the Dutch state, and why not, it may as well be the state given it’s on the other side of the earth and there’s nobody to stop it acting like one.