Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > General Chat

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 19-02-2013, 02:08 PM   #21
skaff
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 1,286
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

There is no such thing as a 'true' or 'real' Monarchy other than the one who is on the throne.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by vagrant applicant

My outlook won't change based on any info I glean.....
Political Compass:
-3.00 Economic
-2.97 Social
skaff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-02-2013, 03:46 AM   #22
damienduffy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 179
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default Being there

Quote:
Originally Posted by skaff View Post
There is no such thing as a 'true' or 'real' Monarchy other than the one who is on the throne.
The term you need for such an entity is "de facto".

It being there does not make it valid.
damienduffy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-02-2013, 03:51 AM   #23
damienduffy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 179
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default This REALLY confuses the issue!

Try this out, it confounds both the present "queen" and also the current pretender:

Queen Elizabeth II is not a legitimate monarch.
Britain´s Real Monarch

This is the title of a TV documentary by Tony Robinson shown on Britain´s Channel 4 on January 3, 2004, and again on November 20, 2004. This documentary presented persuasive evidence that the present Queen of England does not have a valid claim to the throne that she has occupied since 1952.

A legitimate claimant to the English throne must be descended from Henry II (reigned 1154-1189) in an unbroken line of descent in which all members were born legitimately, that is, their parents were married at the time of their birth. If a line of descent passes through someone who was born out of wedlock then no descendant of that person has a legitimate claim to the throne of England.

Now let us examine the validity of the claim of the present Queen of England to the throne. This is most easily done by inspection of the family tree of Henry II given at [link to www.channel4.com] Here we see that Queen Elizabeth II traces her descent back through Victoria (reigned 1837-1901), James I (reigned 1603-1624) and Henry VIII (reigned 1509-1547) to Henry´s father Henry VII (reigned 1485-1509).

Henry VII was descended from John of Gaunt (lived 1340-1399) who was descended from Henry II. Unfortunately for the legitimacy of Henry VII´s claim to the throne, his descent from John of Gaunt was by way of the latter´s mistress (later wife) Katherine through her son John Beaufort. Since John Beaufort was born out of wedlock, this descent could not be used to legitimate Henry VII´s claim to the throne (though John and the other three children of John of Gaunt and Katherine, all born out of wedlock, were legitimized retrospectively by an act of parliament in 1397).

In order to support the claims of Henry VII´s future offspring and descendants (and for the purpose of ending the civil war between the Houses of York and Lancaster), in 1486 Henry married Elizabeth of York, daughter of Edward IV, who claimed to be descended from Edward III (the father of John of Gaunt) and thus from Henry II. It is from the union of Henry VII and Elizabeth that all modern kings and queens of England are descended. But if Edward IV was illegitimate then none of his descendants (and thus none of Henry VII´s descendants) had or have a valid claim to the throne of England.

Edward IV´s mother, Cecily Neville (herself descended, via Katherine, from Edward III) was married to Richard, Duke of York. On the Channel 4 website we read:

According to Dominic Mancini, an Italian visitor to London in 1464, Cecily ´fell into a frenzy´ at news of the marriage of her eldest surviving son Edward IV to Elizabeth Woodville and, in her rage, made the astounding accusation that he was a bastard, adding that she would be prepared to testify before a public enquiry that this was indeed the case.

At the time of Edward´s birth it was rumored that his natural father was an English archer. In fact Edward was tall and (unlike his younger brother Richard III) did not resemble his father in physical appearance.

Although later known for her piety as well as her pride, it is rumoured that, in the summer of 1441, she [Cecily] had an affair with an English archer named Blaybourne based in the Rouen garrison in Normandy while her husband was elsewhere in France fighting. The future Edward IV is said to have been the result of this liaison.

According to documents discovered by Dr Michael Jones in Rouen Cathedral there was a 5-week period when Richard was 100 miles away from his wife, leading a military campaign against the French, during which Henry was conceived, so Richard could not have been Henry´s father, and so Henry´s parents were not married at the time of his birth. Moreover, only one of Henry´s parents (Cecily) was descended from Edward III and Henry II, and that line of descent was illegitimate (it was again via the union of John of Gaunt with Katharine). Thus Henry IV had no legitimate claim to the English throne, and so none of his descendants, including the present Queen of England, have had either.

Tony Robinson asked the question: If the succession of kings and queens from Edward IV to Elizabeth II is illegitimate, is there an alternative, legitimate line of descent? And if so, has it persisted to the present day?

The answer to both questions is Yes. Again consulting [link to www.channel4.com] we see that after the birth of Edward there were two sons born to Cecily and Richard. The youngest, Richard, became King Richard III in 1483 but died childless in the Battle of Bosworth (1485). The second son was George, Duke of Clarence, who was executed in 1478. His daughter Margaret (lived 1473-1541) had five children and among her present-day descendants is Michael Hastings (born 1942), who emigrated to Australia in 1960, married, fathered five children, and currently lives in Jerilderie, New South Wales. Since the line of descent from Henry II to Michael Hastings is legitimate, and the line of descent from Henry II to Elizabeth II is not legitimate, it follows that Michael Hastings is Britain´s legitimate king, and the present occupant of Buckingham Palace has no valid claim to be Queen of England.
[link to www.serendipity.li]
---------------------------------------------
So you see, the belief of David Icke and others that the House of Windsor is an Illuminati royal bloodline is, historically speaking, utterly false. It assumes that the British Royal family is a legitimate, geneticially continuous descent from the earliest kings and queens. It is not. There are many people living today with just as many genes (if not more) inherited from the original King Henry II as Queen Elizabeth II has inherited. She has no right, based upon legitimate marriage (as it always was in royal bloodlines), to call herself ´queen.´ Her only claim comes as an accident of history. She has no more ´royal blood´ in her than thousands of private citizens living today, all of whom can trace back their families in just as direct a route (if not more so) to the original royal bloodline.

The family tree of Queen Elizabeth, showing how the House of Windsor (and therefore the Queen) comes from BASTARD ANCESTORS without any legal right to the British throne, can be seen at:

[link to www.channel4.com]

Look in the family tree for the crucial (that is, for the Windsor family!) union of Henry VII, descendant of John, the bastard son of John of Gaunt and his mistress, and Elizabeth, daughter of Edward IV, bastard son of Cecily Neville and the archer Blaybourne. It is this marriage of two decendants of royal BASTARDS that the House of Windsor descends from, thus proving its illigitimacy.
damienduffy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-02-2013, 03:58 AM   #24
damienduffy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 179
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default Funky thread title

Strange goings on with the thread! I'm glad it was sorted, but it's ended up with quite a funky title that would seem not to attract as many readers as it's original title, which was something like:

EXPLOSIVE! True heir makes claim to the throne!

A lot of people seem to think this is an important story.

Is there any way the title can be fixed?
damienduffy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-02-2013, 04:04 AM   #25
damienduffy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 179
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Exclamation About the fake queen

She is fake regardless of ANYTHING mentioned on this thread anyway, I really thought that all of you here would have known about this (honestly). I have posted the information at the following link, please, all of you read it:

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showt...post1061329805
damienduffy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-02-2013, 04:33 AM   #26
damienduffy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 179
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Exclamation Here is the C4 documentary mentioned above

damienduffy is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
elizabeth, rothschild, royals

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:35 AM.


Shoutbox provided by vBShout (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.