Jump to content

Royal Thread - All royal stories here please


jack121

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, bamboozooka said:

benjamin fulford this week

 

 

Untitled.jpg

 

This was one of my theories, which makes sense if you look into the royals and their obsession with dates and sacrifice (and read David Icke, who Christine Fitzgerald spoke to at length in the 90s about Diana). They'd pick their significant Satanic date to announce it, either Easter or maybe end of April (Walpurgisnacht), or first week in April which seems big on their calendar, 4th-8th. Either that or, as I also said, she will return at Easter with rays of light behind her head in a holy corona and will be proclaimed the Messiah by the simple minded peasantry, who will rejoice wildly.

 

 

 

 

Edited by northern star
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/19/2024 at 8:04 PM, pete675 said:

 

But William doesn't have a surname, or if he does it's something like Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg und Glücksburg ( and possibly Oldenberg as well)

 

Any wonder she prefers Middleton?

 

Yes, I know that women are 'emancipated' now and many do choose to keep their maiden names after marriage, notably professional women.

 

Legally somewhere, the Royal family do have a surname, and yes I know they changed it from 'Saxe-Coburg-Gotha' to 'Windsor' prior to one of the World Wars.

 

They are collectively known as "the Windsors".

 

Prior to her marriage, as a youngster I remember Diana was referred to as 'Lady Diana Spencer' by the media.

 

Once she married Charles, I always remember her as "Diana, Princess Of Wales", "Princess Diana", or as the tabloids always referred to her "Princess Di"

 

I don't recall her ever being named as 'Diana Spencer'.

 

Yet Kate Middleton is still 'Kate Middleton'. (And Meghan Markle is still 'Meghan Markle', though as she is/was a professional actress/model, that may be the reason she never changed her name).

 

Why not "Princess Kate" or even "Princess Catherine"? (Or 'Kate Windsor'?)

 

The mainstream media still refer to her as 'Kate Middleton' like she is still a 'commoner'.

 

That's what I find really 'odd' about all this.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/20/2024 at 2:11 AM, itsnotallrightjack said:

 

I never heard about that! I'd love to see this clip. Had a look online and didn't find it. I expect it was got rid of.

 

My first reaction on seeing the "new" clip of William and Catherine shopping in Windsor was that it is not her. Something off about it (and I don't mean the low res).

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Grumpy Owl said:

Why not "Princess Kate" or even "Princess Catherine"? (Or 'Kate Windsor'?)

 

The mainstream media still refer to her as 'Kate Middleton' like she is still a 'commoner'.

 

That's what I find really 'odd' about all this.

 

Yes it's strange, and the fact that Kate wasn't wearing her wedding ring in the doctored photo the other week started up some speculation that their marriage is on the rocks.

 

The Royals do have a very different use of surnames than the rest of us, I've been looking into it a bit. Queen Elizabeth didn't take her husband's surname when they got married, it was him that had to change his name to Mountbatten when he emigrated to Britain. (his original surname was Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg). Their children don't normally use a surname either but when they have to it is 'Mountbatten-Windsor'.  So in their case it was the female Queen's royal house which took precedence. 

 

'Windsor' isn't really a surname, the full version is House of Windsor to refer to the royal dynasty. They only use surnames when they have to for some legal purpose. Before that, they were members of the Saxe-Coburg and Gotha branch of the House of Wettin from their descent from Albert, Prince Consort, husband of Queen Victoria, who was the last of the House of Hanover. So at that time it was the male House which took precedence, even though he wan't the King or an heir to the throne. So something changed inbetween those times. Then it was changed to Windsor by royal decree in 1917 not only because Saxe-Coburg-Gotha sounds German, but also because  a German bomber called the Gotha had been invented which was capable of bombing London. 

 

Mind you, most ordinary people didn't use surnames until the middle ages anyway. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Windsor 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, northern star said:

 

This was one of my theories, which makes sense if you look into the royals and their obsession with dates and sacrifice (and read David Icke, who Christine Fitzgerald spoke to at length in the 90s about Diana). They'd pick their significant Satanic date to announce it, either Easter or maybe end of April (Walpurgisnacht), or first week in April which seems big on their calendar, 4th-8th. Either that or, as I also said, she will return at Easter with rays of light behind her head in a holy corona and will be proclaimed the Messiah by the simple minded peasantry, who will rejoice wildly.

 

I'm not fond of Benjamin Fulford but if Kate has been sacrificed, it makes sense to me.

Remember Kate and Charlotte wore olive branches on their heads for the King's coronation, much like UN flag. That's to trap the souls.

So may be females were considered as sacrifice, like Diana.

 

William and Kate got married on 29 April 2011, that's 11-4-4 or 11-4-11 (chaos manifested by chaos). That's 13 years ago, an unfortunate number.

 

There is an eclipse on the 8th.

 

 

Edited by DaleP
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, bamboozooka said:

benjamin fulford this week

 

Untitled.jpg

 

Diana was offed on 31st August 1997 because she was running round with Dodi Fayed. He bought her a ring the day before they died and she was quite possibly pregnant too. She guessed it was coming and she was foolish not to go and live elsewhere. So, although someone may argue that she would have gotten offed at some stage in the future anyway, for other reasons; the fact remains that if she hadn't been running round with Dodi Fayed, then she wouldn't have gotten offed on 31st August 1997. And yes, it was one of the most blatant assassinations going.

Edited by numnuts
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/20/2024 at 10:09 PM, Certified Green of Heart said:

 

but I guess not protected forever (for some?)...... just as an observation.... (Vid might also reveal that or something like below in the DI link, or it might not... but it comes in handy that I find DI's word on Royals as I post this anyway>>)

 

https://davidicke.com/2024/02/29/i-have-been-saying-and-writing-for-years-that-the-royals-would-be-phased-out-after-the-queen-and-philip-royalty-has-played-a-major-role-in-the-global-cult-over-centuries-but-it-has-no-place-in-t/

 

They keep  surreptitiously avoiding the true reason for their given prominence, in that they are all members of the axis of evil

 

Axisofevil.jpg.0f117307f3833d2dc074751d1d8865e4.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, numnuts said:

 

Diana was offed on 31st August 1997 because she was running round with Dodi Fayed. He bought her a ring the day before they died and she was quite possibly pregnant too. She guessed it was coming and she was foolish not to go and live elsewhere. So, although someone may argue that she would have gotten offed at some stage in the future anyway, for other reasons; the fact remains that if she hadn't been running round with Dodi Fayed, then she wouldn't have gotten offed on 31st August 1997. And yes, it was one of the most blatant assassinations going.

But wasn't she getting shagged by everyone anyway, i doubt just running around with a dodo was serious enough to off her. I mean look at fergie after she split up with randy andy the paedophile, she was sucking every cock in town, toes even.

Look at cash grabbing kate and little willy, that's the most blatantly open marriage in history

i think the real reason is that chaz is worth £18  trillion and she was going to take half of that away from him

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Benjamin Fulford. Why don't I trust him?

 

He writes: "20 years experience as a professional writer and journalist.  Have sold over 500,000 non-fiction books written in Japanese.  Have produced a comprehensive catalogue of scoops in field ranging from business to yakuza gangsters to high finance to government corruption.  Now focused on exposing U.S. manipulation of Japanese politics, media, and education through a combination of bribes, murder, brainwashing, etc.  My goal is to counter U.S. propaganda and expose the Japanese people to the truth so that they may free themselves from the colonial yoke and use their $5 trillion in overseas holdings to end world poverty and save the environment."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, jack121 said:

But wasn't she getting shagged by everyone anyway, i doubt just running around with a dodo was serious enough to off her.

She was involved with her bodyguard who was killed in a motorbike accident. No evidence of foul play, so the inquest concluded. I wonder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DaleP said:

We've even got echoes of the "suicided nurse" business again, with un-named hospital employees accessing Kate's medical records from her visit/stay (if she was ever there at all). Those individuals will be disciplined, of course. So just another hospital connected to Kate where bad stuff happens and we'll probably see another "suicide". And the public still cling to the idea that the Royals aren't dodgy.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Anti Facts Sir said:

We've even got echoes of the "suicided nurse" business again, with un-named hospital employees accessing Kate's medical records from her visit/stay (if she was ever there at all). Those individuals will be disciplined, of course. So just another hospital connected to Kate where bad stuff happens and we'll probably see another "suicide". And the public still cling to the idea that the Royals aren't dodgy.

The original nurse story was downright bizarre in that one would have thought that the Queen impersonation in question would not have deceived the most naive simpleton in the world for one moment. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Bombadil said:

Kate has cancer apparently

Just difficult to believe anything that is put out at this point, although some will believe it, its very contrived in order to garner sympathy at a point where a lot people have been doubting their credibility. If anyone says anything now, they will be totally heartless etc.  

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

harry the wingman was banging her thats why he was sent packing to markel

 

there was a woman done all conspiracy vids on youtube maryam40 she just vanished

she was showing pics of radiant kate with harry and gloomy kate with william

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kate has cancer? Well William went to the Baftas havin a laugh, Camilla has just been on hols, Harry nipped over for half an hour then went back and close knit Pippa was also having a good laugh on hols - they're all devastated.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Malbec said:

Just difficult to believe anything that is put out at this point, although some will believe it, its very contrived in order to garner sympathy at a point where a lot people have been doubting their credibility. If anyone says anything now, they will be totally heartless etc.  

This. It's shut the mouths of everybody except the darkest of souls. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone once said "its a great day to bury bad news".

 

I haven't doctored this, it literally is a screenshot of what the BirminghamLive homepage looks like:

 

image.png.ea2d956c216313ff65cdf16afee05894.png

 

What Kate Middleton 'needs' right now is for the click-bait churners to fuck off and leave her alone. But they won't.

 

And the mainstream media have the nerve to accuse others of 'ghoulish' behaviour, while they themselves seek to exploit this news for their own financial gain through click-bait advertising revenue.

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whole thing seems very strange...

 

There's also been a lot of stuffs in papers about cancer recently - it's in our plastic.....don't worry we got these new miracle cancer jabs that will cure you...now she has cancer......

 

Wouldn't surprise me if she gets miraculously cured by one of these new vaccines to prove it's safe and effective...

 

But that's me with my cynical hat. Probably is as written. 

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...