PDA

View Full Version : The Queen of England - Evil or Benign?



Peacelovinman
16th March 2011, 20:12
Inspired by a thread I started on QEII owning a sixth of the world's acreage, I would welcome your discussion on this point.

Many alternative media researchers, such as David Icke and Dr John Coleman, have it that QEII and her family are "Black Nobility" and, as such, are fairly near the top of the pyramid of control over us "useless eaters". This is what I have believed for some time.

However, others researchers such as Christopher Story (R.I.P) reported the Queen's influence in World affairs as a benign one.

Your thoughts?

SKAWF
16th March 2011, 21:33
think of the position of 'queen' as being an office.
its just a role.
its said that the queen is the head of york rite freemasonry.
whenever people join those kinds of organisations, the swear an oath of loyalty to it,
loyalty to that, above all other things.
even above the 'office' of queen.

it might seem strange,
but the queen might actually be subservient to another member of the group who holds little public status!.
now consider that many of the high ranking polititions we see on tv, are members of such organisations.
each one having gone through the ceremony of a mock death, to be reborn into the order theyve joined.
and each one having sworn an oath of loyalty to it, above ALL other things.

the bloodline.

they see themselves as a breed. as being superior to the rest uf us.
they dont care about anyone else but themselves.
there is a malignancy about that.
but at the same time, within it, there may be some who see things differently.
maybe a monarch who is adored by millions, could become attached to her subjects....
maybe not.
maybe she could be subservient to someone who has no such attachment.
its bigger than the individual.

those are my thoughts.

steve

PS, christopher story, what he had to say blew me away.

happyexpat
17th March 2011, 14:11
HIdbbpOj1iw

There is a great deal to be learned from this, if one so chooses.

seko
17th March 2011, 14:50
I have nothing good to say about the queen I think and the whole royal families in Europe should not have any power over anybody anymore and all their lands should be given back to the people and people...... don't take a bow.:cool:

Sensual One
17th March 2011, 15:26
Completely pointless imposter.

GK76
17th March 2011, 15:44
I agree with Seko, to a point. The trouble is: who in their right mind would give up that kind of life voluntarily? The people need to take back the power... not ask for it cap-in-hand, or wait for it to be given. It's long over due for the unelected spongers to vacate the premises. The trouble is there is so much corruption below them that they can easily thwart any attempts to abolish the civil list, they will tweak the civil list every now and again just to feign a show of people power. And then there's the sheeple... no use at all, if anything they would support the regime.

Well I'm going to write to the Prime minister and ask how one applies for the job of Royalty... if no job exists then why are they being paid? (just to qualify this... yes I know they have 'duties', but the point is they have no right to that position... divine right is a farce)

Fred259
17th March 2011, 16:10
They are liars, and cheats thieves and criminals. They are the root cause of all evil, and a scourge on mankind.

This video goes some way to explaining the problem. Her Majesty controls the worldwide narcotics trade today just as her bloodline did in year’s past.

In the video take a Apache helicopter ride through the valleys of Afghanistan. This is a country that imports food because all available land is cropped in poppies. The US and UK troops protect this trade for Her Majesty.

This is a serious video; it’s really about the Corporation of London and the “Livery companies” who control trade worldwide. It’s these same livery companies who provided the technology patents that enabled 9/11 to happen……………..

However, Warning.

If you’re an American this video may upset your day…. It’s them Redcoats again. Did you think they ever really went away!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bS0LQedWGb8&feature=player_embedded

slvrfx
17th March 2011, 16:18
According to my genealogical sources, the Royal Family of England are the imposters.

dan i el
17th March 2011, 16:21
Rio Tinto are quite murderously disgusting internationally and she is a/the major shareholder in them, so who knows...

A relative parallel might be: You can take the Cheney out of the Halliburton but can you take the Halliburton out of the Cheney? :der: ?

The One
17th March 2011, 16:31
Freemasons open a lodge at Buckingham Palace... but the Queen isn't amused

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-528751/Freemasons-open-lodge-Buckingham-Palace--Queen-isnt-amused.html#ixzz1GsMzmYmg

How rich is Queen Elizabeth?

worth around £348 million. She also owns properties privately that have never been valued, including Sandringham House, Balmoral Castle reputedly worth £160 million and the Castle of Mey. Her personal art collection is worth at least £10 billion, and she owns personal jewellery and a large stamp collection built up by her grandfather George V. Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle, the Crown Jewels and the Royal Art Collection are held in trust for the nation. The Crown Estate, the royal lands dating from 1066, are worth around £7.3 billion and generate £304 million (2008/9) in revenue a year which is handed back to the Government as payment in return for the £38.2 million per year (2009/10 down 7% from £41 million in 2008) cost of running the monarchy. This arrangement dates from George III who gave up the right to the income in return for the Civil List paid to members of the Royal Family. It

the trojan
17th March 2011, 16:35
HIdbbpOj1iw

There is a great deal to be learned from this, if one so chooses.
Who is the sixth face in the crowd....right knee of the clown in the shorts.....hee hee!

yup....glorious war!

slipknotted
17th March 2011, 16:35
she good at keeping a low profile but think about what we all know she is in bed with TPTB, she is one of them, she has to be! !

bodixa
17th March 2011, 16:49
One thing I love about Avalon is the incredibly high quality of the guess-work.

Bluewool
17th March 2011, 17:30
I quite like the theory that she is possessed by some astral entity.This parasite attached to her at a young age and continues to control her.We know nothing of this women as all we ever see is what they want us to see.What does she do all day? No one knows for certain but I bet if we had a hidden camera following her we would be deeply shocked! Does she take part in blood rituals as told Icke about the queen mum? She was even more scary in my opinion,some high ranking Draco perhaps?

azure
17th March 2011, 18:57
I think she answers to Pindar ..

grannyfranny100
18th March 2011, 08:03
Don't know the answer but she sure has bad taste in men. Her's says he wants to return as a virus to get rid of the sheeple:rolleyes:

RedeZra
18th March 2011, 20:49
when Queen Anne of Great Britain from the House of Stuart died in 1714 - the Act of Settlement 1701 prohibited Catholics from inheriting the British throne - so George I ascended the British throne as the first monarch of the House of Hanover and therby bypassing some fifty closer Catholic relatives to Queen Anne

the House of Hanover is a younger branch of the House of Welf (Guelph) which in turn is the senior branch of the House of Este

the House of Welf (Guelph) was Big in city states like Genoa and Bavaria in the time of the Crusades and the Investiture Controversy between Church and states a 1000 years ago - and gave raise to the conflict between 'Guelphs and Ghibellines' - families fighting each other for power and even the Seat of Peter





the flag of Genoa

http://www.gojanny.com/maps/GenoaFlag.JPG

Seikou-Kishi
18th March 2011, 21:15
There hasn't been a queen of England for over 300 years...

GK76
18th March 2011, 21:57
Simply put: there is no need to elevate any person(s) to such a level - if they wish to become a leader of a nation then do it on merit and not out of some farcical belief system or hereditary rule. A monarch as a ruler was obsolete many years ago, so why allow this charade to continue?

According to many royalists they are a good tourist attraction - nice, then turn the royal family into a corporation and let's see the income for real. What am I thinking? They are too good for that kind of treatment, but, they don't think you are too good to be treated the same way, many of whom haven't been under British rule for a long time, yet the influence remains.

Another thing that amuses me is those who claim the monarch has no real authority any more... anyone notice what happened to the British Empire? It didn't collapse... it was reinvented with a mass of puppet states. The British government also went the same way - the true rulers stand aside and let the puppets rise and fall, when it suits the situation, whatever happens the rulers are seemingly untouchable and innocent in the eyes of the sheeple.

Lord Sidious
19th March 2011, 03:01
Simply put: there is no need to elevate any person(s) to such a level - if they wish to become a leader of a nation then do it on merit and not out of some farcical belief system or hereditary rule. A monarch as a ruler was obsolete many years ago, so why allow this charade to continue?

According to many royalists they are a good tourist attraction - nice, then turn the royal family into a corporation and let's see the income for real. What am I thinking? They are too good for that kind of treatment, but, they don't think you are too good to be treated the same way, many of whom haven't been under British rule for a long time, yet the influence remains.

Another thing that amuses me is those who claim the monarch has no real authority any more... anyone notice what happened to the British Empire? It didn't collapse... it was reinvented with a mass of puppet states. The British government also went the same way - the true rulers stand aside and let the puppets rise and fall, when it suits the situation, whatever happens the rulers are seemingly untouchable and innocent in the eyes of the sheeple.

There is no heriditary monarch in the UK and hasn't been since William and Mary contracted with parliament to become the first monarchs in parliament.
Read the Bill of Rights 1688, it is all in there.
The monarch is appointed by parliament and they can appoint anyone they want, so the story goes.
I would say that elizabeth is higher in the secrect government than she is in the public one.