Who or What Constitutes the Crown?

In a discussion on the UK Column forum it was said that, constitutionally speaking, our 'contract' is not with the Queen  but with the Crown that she represents. My question was, who or what constitutes the Crown? This essay by Tom Valentine, on the Truth Seeker website, seems to offer us some clues. It certainly confirms my own suspicions.

Here are a few pertinent quotes that go at least some way towards answering my question.

"The “modern” world of our so-called Western Civilization began at the end of the 17th century with the blossoming of the British Empire. The underpinnings of that empire actually began several hundred years earlier with the establishment of the City of London, which is now an 800-year old corporation that controls finance and philosophy for an entity called the Crown. This entity is the creator and controller of “central banks.” 

The Crown has never been the King or Queen of England since the establishment of this corporate body. The Crown is the directorate of the corporation.

Western colonization of the Americas, India and Africa is widely taught in school history courses, so it need not be repeated here. One key aspect of the colonial period is generally omitted or skimmed over from the more basic history courses. This is the fact that all the Crown colonies were established on a corporate model with financial ties to the City of London—not the nation of England or Britain.

The directorate of the Crown, whoever they were, had no loyalty to any nation—they were, and are, devoted entirely to their philosophy which seeks absolute power over an Earthly realm. For more than 250 years, the denizens of the Crown brought untold wealth back from the colonies to the British Isles—for themselves—note: the population of the United Kingdom (British, English, Scottish, Irish, Welsh peoples) received very little wealth even though they provided the tax base and cannon fodder. 

The people were invaluable assets of the Crown, but they knew not what they served—and still don’t. No people are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely think they are free (Goethe). 

If, for example, one reads the history of the Rothschilds one can readily see how the game of high finance works on a worldwide basis. Incidentally, the Rothschilds kept control within their family while dominating Europe. They were never part of the Crown though they served the high cabal very well. The Rothschilds were allowed to amass immense wealth, without ever becoming insiders. 

Another well-known family name that was set-up by the Crown without being given a place among the directorate was Rockefeller. But this is incidental information, and we get ahead of the story. Suffice it to say that the Crown may carefully cultivate those whom they make rich and powerful so long as it serves to conceal their identity and promote the cabal’s goals. 

If one wants to know the genuine motives for particular actions in history they are told to “follow the money.” But that is only half of it—one must also follow the philosophy—the religious beliefs of those in control. 

For purposes of clarity, let the Crown always refer to a stealthy circle of power brokers who all believe in the Masonic philosophy—the brotherhood of man ruled by philosopher kings (or adepts) in league with Lucifer, the God of Masonry. One need only wade through the cumbersome histories of Masonry and also read Albert Pike’s Morals and Dogma to see precisely that this anti-Christian power-philosophy encompasses virtually all the other religious notions ever conjured up by man. 

Ordinary members of Masonic lodges, your relatives and mine, are to these adepts and their goals what the people of the United Kingdom and United States are to the directors of the Crown—useful fools; masses of asses! "

The article then continues as an outline of the historical events that have bought us to today's sorry state of affairs. Focussing particularly on the Crown's role in those events. I'd certainly recommend reading it if you can.