Sunday, June 23, 2019

The Thatcher Meeting: Herbert Armstrong and Margaret Thatcher




Declassified files from the Margaret Thatcher foundation
 reveal the truth about the infamous Herbert Armstrong meeting with Margaret Thatcher: For Thatcher and the development of the Royal Opera House, it was all about securing money for the completion of the Opera House. For Armstrong, he bought his way into a meeting with the Prime Minister, and literally bought his name on a plaque on the foyer of the Opera House. But there were concerns from within. 

Concerns were expressed that Herbert Armstrong would "Misrepresent" the meeting to suggest the Prime Minister's support of "The Church and it's activities". Strong caution was advised, because "Armstrong had been trying hard to become identified as someone with contacts to the Royal Family and the Prime Minister". 

In one file, it was stated: 

"In Herbert Armstrong's mind, image seems to be all important. His desired association with the 'great and near-great', as he states it, seems to be principally for the purpose of improving his own image. And he is willing to pay well for just such association." 

It was also stated:

"The main purpose of the advertising appeared to be to gain respectability for himself." 

It was said that any meeting with Armstrong would be "Inappropriate". There were also concerns that Herbert Armstrong, "through his checkbook", is gaining access to people he "certainly should not meet."  Armstrong agreed to donate a considerable sum to the Royal Opera House fund for it's completion. 

Margaret Thatcher agreed to the meeting with Armstrong because of his donation. Armstrong only wanted "a few minutes" with the Prime Minister, if possible. Thatcher would meet with him to "thank him for his generosity to the Royal Opera House Development Appeal". 

When Armstrong was told that the "Plaque" in Herbert Armstrong's name had a qualifying donation of 100,000 pounds, he "increased the check to that amount, and raised the amount of the check to 185,000 pounds." The meeting with Margaret Thatcher was allowed because they had reason to believe Herbert Armstrong would be even more generous if he had the opportunity to meet her. 

The bottom line is, the Royal Opera House needed Herbert Armstrong's money to complete the Royal Opera House because it needed donations from the private sector. Herbert Armstrong needed recognition and a meeting with Margaret Thatcher, and his name on a plaque in the foyer. Both goals were accomplished at the expense of the Membership and co-workers of the Worldwide Church of God, under the guise to the membership of a Matthew 24 prophetic fulfillment. There was no time, nor was there any interest by Margaret Thatcher, of any gospel proclamation or any witness in fulfillment of the "gospel of the Kingdom of God" being preached or proclaimed to Margaret Thatcher or the British Government. This was all about money, ego, and self-gratification on the part of Armstrong. 

It was, as this blog has been saying, over and over again, all about the money, and on the part of the Church, a scam to it's well-meaning and well-intentioned members. 


Incidentally, The Thatcher files show the membership of the Worldwide Church of God in the United States in 1982 at 51,888, and internationally at 19,154.

submitted by SHT

30 comments:

nck said...

If HWA were to take away a gun from a child this blog would headline "HWA steals from children."

After this meeting, several meetings with Royalty followed, among those visits with powerbrokers whose names shall not be mentioned since people would call me "buff".

Some of those were co sponsors with AICF of the most important (from an academic perspective) Tel Hazor digs.

That makes the story a little more complete.

Nck

What is interesting though is how politicians public image is protected. Especially the association with wealth at a time Thatcher was releasing millions of people to the streets by closing mines, selling British Infrastructure (which for trains was a good thing)

Ah well. The Brits have always been more comfortable from gaining wealth from American lasses than men. They'll be needing some more donations if BJ will be the next prime minister to really offend the EU.

Anonymous said...

Herbie did steal from children. Money that should have been used on children for clothes, shelter, schooling went to the turds in Pasadena. Some lost their lives when Herbie told the parents not to take them to doctors. Children were robbed of healthy families when Herbie split up marriages because of D&R. Children were robbed of a normal life because of the Petra lies. Children were robbed of healthy family relationships when members were told to not associate with unconverted family members. So yes nick, hilxren in the cult were robbed by Herbie, Stop your mental fellato of Herbie. We all know you love him.

Anonymous said...

Point of order...

"When Armstrong was told that the 'Plaque' in Herbert Armstrong's name had a qualifying donation of 100,000 pounds, he 'increased the check to that amount, and raised the amount of the check to 185,000 pounds.'"

Once again, that's a misquote. The actual and complete quote from Pat Spooner's letter is as follows:

"After taking Mr Armstrong backstage at Covent Garden, adn to see the new Opera Rehearsal Studio in the extension, he expressed interest in contributing to the appeal and mentioned a figure of $100,000.When I saw him subsequently at the Dorchester Hotel, and told him about the plaque to be unveiled by The Prince of Wales in the Foyer of the Royal Opera House on 19th July, and for which the qualifying donation is £100,000, he decided to increase his donation to that amount, and promptly gave me a cheque for $185,000!'"

Herb initially suggested a donation for only $100,000 (£54,000), but when he was informed that if he wanted the plaque he'd have to shell out £100,000 ($185,000), that's what he decided to do.

Mr. Spooner did NOT say he wrote a check for £185,000 ($342,250).

nck said...

12:16

Well, my comment provided an apropriate opportunity for you say what you wanted not?

Just as the plaque costs could in advertising terms be considered an apropriate amount of money for the cause in question and articulate wcg culture. (in money terms equaling 1 month of world tomorrow broadcasting on a super station?)

Until of course the Robinson's bombed that opportunity for reasons that were of particular concern to them. Whether they paid the tithe payers a service or a disservice in this regard, (or the publishing of their infamous book) I leave open to each and every individual to decide.

nck

Anonymous said...

David Robinson was somewhat of a mystery-figure in that while he definitely shined some light in areas which were inconvenient for the Armstrongs, he also continued to keep the classic WCG doctrines even after he was disfellowshipped and worked as a janitor. His oldest son more or less sat on his father’s incendiary book and let it die a quiet death.

I don’t believe the Robinsons had any illusions of ever profiteering from “Tangled Web”. David attempted to expose someone whom the membership of the WCG considered to be a near Biblical figure. Even if there had been evidence such as a used condom, an accidental child, or film of the very act, the majority of the members would have believed their “apostle” rather than the evidence.

Tonto said...

Inflation adjusted, using Federal Reserve CPI numbers, the HWA donation for the Royal Opera House would be the equivalent of $498,000 in 2019 dollars.

It would require over 120 average full-time USA income earners A WHOLE YEAR to produce that much tithe for this frivolous ego trip for HWA!

The Royal Opera House is and has been a "black hole" economically, just like AICF was. AICF , in spite of ticket sales and the like, cost the church a DEFICIT of over $10 Million a year back in the 1980s.

What is there currently to show for ANY of this nonsense? Nothing, absolutely nothing. Dust in the wind, all of it. Was the Gospel served? NO!!!

The Royal Opera House lists how some of the donations made to them currently are used ...

£2 buys a long shoe-horn
£4.50 buys a pair of 12" laces
£6.50 buys a pack of six insoles
£12 buys a pair of gym pumps
£27 buys a month's worth of scuff coat
£40 buys 5 litres of glue
£50 buys enough rubber to sole 20 pairs of shoes
£200 buys a pair of ladies' handmade gigi boots
£1,200 provides a chorister with a set of footwear (six pairs of handmade shoes) for use throughout their career at Covent Garden

Aren't you glad that your hard earned money went to support such important things??

From the Royal Opera House website...
https://www.roh.org.uk/support/why-support-us

Anonymous said...

@ 8:44 AM, aren't quite a few of David Robinson's children and grandchildren still involved in the ACOGs?

Tonto said...

One thing just struck me. I heard HWA once brag (at about the time of the Royal Opera House trip) that he was considered a potential nominee for the "Nobel Peace Prize".

Certainly a crock of crap, but in HWAs mind, this would have been the ultimate "ego trip" , and he obviously had it as a desire and for "his place in history". Regardless of the price , if HWA wanted it, he was going to get it, even on the backs of poor working class folks who couldn't even afford dental work, or new underwear.

Anonymous said...

During the time of Herod’s Temple, it was possible to buy a high priesthood. HWA’s modern version of influence buying was no different at all. The British officials who were vetting him were 100% accurate in their suspicions.

Anonymous said...

Imagine how much money Butterball slipped under the table to corrupt Philippine Pres. Marcos to get the 'key to the city', campaign in metro Manila auditorium, honorary doctorate at regional university?!?

Anonymous said...

I don’t know, 9:20. Most of my knowledge of the Robinsons is ancient. I had read in the now defunct Journal that his sons John and Mark had passed away several years ago. Someone on a forum had once shared that a grandson was working at a motorcycle dealership in Tucson, AZ. The only connections I have had with splinter people for decades are the ones on these so-called dissident sites such as Banned. It would not surprise me if some of the family were still attending UCG, or its splinter, COGWA.

~8:44

Anonymous said...

That Nobel Peace Prize fantasy was being floated by HWA in the early ‘70s. Some idolatrous admirer like nck was probably nominating him, and the old goat probably took it seriously.

Anonymous said...


“A gift opens the way for the giver and ushers him into the presence of the great” (Proverbs 18:16, NIV).

Anonymous said...

Herbie desired the Nobel peace prize that is well known for awarding lefties and communists.

nck said...

12:56

I'm sorry, what were you saying.

I was a little distracted by an article today by one of the Central Bankers explaining Adam Smith's "Invisible Hand." (as my school mates were kidding about at our high school reunion imitating our economics teacher)

Soooooooooo apropriate in relation to Maggie who indeed was "The invisible Hand INCARNATE", for those with some sort of basic economic knowledge and understanding of British "history" (sigh......as I lived through those Maggie - Reagan years pupils today study about as "history".

nck

SHT said...

3:11 -

God would never justify a "gift" taken off the backs of the poor, the suffering, the hurting, the destitute, the needy, the widows. Taking money from the poor to preach "a gospel" goes against the very Gospel of the Bible. But this wasn't the "gospel" that Herbert was preaching. Not even close.

The Bible speaks volumes against unjust/sordid gain. It speaks volumes against harming or cheating the poor and the destitute. It speaks volumes about PROPER methods of tithing in the Old Testament (Hint: It didn't involve money.) Herbert's methods were not just anti-scripture, they were everything that the Scriptures say God is against. They were rooted in conceit, they were rooted in want, they were rooted in self-gratification no matter how deluded he was that he was fulfilling some sort of biblical prophecy. News flash: He was not. God would not accept sordid gain and unjust financial abuse to fulfill any kind of prophecy.

Herbert was "successful" because he used worldly tactics and business methods including advertising tricks and - most of all - fear - to build up what he built up. "A gift opens the way for the giver", but a gift GIVEN how Herbert TOOK would never be an acceptable way to fulfill any sort of "prophecy". Ever.

“Whoever gives to the poor will not want, but he who hides his eyes will get many a curse.” Proverbs 28:7

“All my bones shall say, ‘O LORD, who is like you, delivering the poor from him who is too strong for him, the poor and needy from him who robs him?'” Psalm 35:10

“‘Because the poor are plundered, because the needy groan, I will now arise,’ says the LORD; ‘I will place him in the safety for which he longs.'” Psalm 12:5

“Whoever oppresses the poor to increase his own wealth, or gives to the rich, will only come to poverty.” Proverbs 22:16

“Do not rob the poor, because he is poor, or crush the afflicted at the gate, for the LORD will plead their cause and rob of life those who rob them.” Proverbs 22:22-23

“Whoever closes his ear to the cry of the poor will himself call out and not be answered.” Proverbs 21:13

(ESV)



Anonymous said...

Anon June 24 3:11

WOE to you when everyone speaks well of you, for that is how their ancestors treated the false prophets.
(Luke 6:26)

Or
Beware of Herberts bearing gifts.

Anonymous said...

If the poor were on board with this, and had given their blessing to it, that would be like the right way of approaching such gifts. HWA never asked them. He commanded unbiblical levels of tithing, and then via implied consent, used these tithes not so much to get out even his half a gospel, but to sell himself to these dignitaries as being their equal. Had he been effective, been who he said he was, and had he gotten his inspiration from the source he claimed, we’d all be in the Kingdom now. Sorry, but bullshit walks.

Anonymous said...

In the chapel at the Eisenhower Presidential Library, where he, his wife and infant son are buried, there is this quote on the wall: "Every gun made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. . . ." In the case of HWA, who promoted the importance of going into all the world to preach the Gospel, every wasted tithe dollar signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those widows who are hungry, and are not fed . . . uninformed who are not preached the Good News of the Gospel, . . . . . . . . You can fill in the rest.
In one of the last scenes of Schindler's List, Oscar Schindler said, "I could have done more . . ." He had regrets that so much of the money was spent on luxury items, such as his car, his jewelry, etc. HWA had a lot of time to think and reflect on his life. I wonder if he had any regrets.

Anonymous said...

And then TKACHsnr, continuing HWA madness, writes a big check for the new Globe Theatre project! High visibility philanthropic grandstanding! with money from his struggling low income followers!

nck said...

12:17

Yeah...your right.


What did this Shakespeare dude ever do for us?

Of course wise steward Tkach cut 150000 dollars in printing costs by taking MOA out of print. Therefore he could donate 100.000 dollars to the Red Cross for San Francisco earth quake relief. Didn't anyone dare to tell the hippies not to start building and living on the San Andreas vault?

I am at present reading president Eisenhowers military orders to the commanders who were to expect briefings by "the monument men." The first person ever to issue orders to take care of the heritage of man while even during combat.

A wise man.

Just the other day I spoke to a guy at the defense department who got to see the bombing targets in Syria just before the jets would take off. This provided an opportunity to see if any monuments were in harms way. In a way he was protecting our AICF heritage like the digs in Syria.

nck

Anonymous said...

Having been born, raised and lived all my years in poverty; first to my parents who were more concerned about themselves and alcohol and cigarettes than their children, then my father who took every penny I earned working till I got married and got away, then to my then husband who did the same thing while not being able to provide for the family, sending what money we did have to armstrong; to this day now as a senior who lives alone, I still live in extreme poverty. I cannot imagine having anything but the basics in life. But...now I am content because what little money I do have, I control. That means a lot to me. I’m fed, clothed, housed and medically cared for. I’m happy. I give when I can and when I want to, to whomever I please.

Anonymous said...

mr armstrongs legacy, and indeed the churchs (not to mention the spreading of the gospel), would have been everlasting had he invested more in the poor and disenfranchised of the church rather than trying to leverage his name and cause into the spotlight via mammon...

please stop censoring me...

c f ben yochanan

Opinionated said...

I hope they poured sulfur over the earth that the admin building once stood on. Chase away the evil spirits........

Opinionated said...

nck

June 25, 2019 at 6:14 AM

Learn to spell or sue you English teachers for your lousy education.

nck said...

3:25

Opinionated.
I will start exemplary spelling the day everyone substitutes the "anonymous" monniker for a "screenname". I do so already in conversations, after a person expresses interest in a topic I adressed. I agree, that doesn't happen very often. Thank you for your concern.

Nck

nck said...

10:03

I myself have in the past apologized for "atrocious" and will now add "abysmal" spelling.
I have never seen the word "dastardly" on this blog.

You'll have my vote for an improvement and use of glossary!

I can't hide behind "Siri made me do it."

nck

nck said...

Since I would not like to grace the "zerobabble" topic with serious debate and Margareth Thatcher of "the invisible hand incarnate" is the topic.

This is just in from Osaka.

Ronald Reagan, Thatcher, HWA all ushering in the era of "the invisible hand" of liberal markets.

Today Putin commented in Osaka:

"When asked about a backlash against the so-called establishment around the world, Putin said the "liberal idea" had "outlived its purpose."


Will we now then be entering the era of "peace and prosperity on earth brought about by A rod of Iron".



Also Robert Kaplan has some articles out there that "America must prepare for the Chinese Empire" and not necessarily focus on "making the world safe through democracy", but prepare for more hybrid "rod of iron" type regimes.


EXACTLY in the same order as "announced" by HWA.
(HWA as a type of "Mercury or the announcer of the gods", as Mercury is also the symbol of trade.) If one is not too predisposed as to see HWA as a "god" instead of a messenger of such or focus on the timing.

nck








Anonymous said...

Got a question for Nick Kaplan: When HWA visited Maggie, Indira, and Goldilocks, or other of the aging "hotties", did he pack some condoms in his luggage?

nck said...

6:43

That was not an issue those days. Especially not if the passion is a shared one.

Acting with. hindsight an extreme minority on blogs is complaining about the "lubricant" though.

The lubricant was well publicized, no one inside complained and the purpose was openly stated in print and word.

Nck