The Church of England at War

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

The Church of England at War

Postby antiaristo » Sun Apr 16, 2006 6:06 pm

The dear old Church of England has been battered remorselessly for years.<br>Because it has only one power left.<br><br>It is the Archbishop of Canterbury that presides at the Coronation.<br><br>Charles Windsor has schemed and plotted for years.<br>He needs a woman on the Throne to give life to the Treason Felony Act. A queen who will do his bidding.<br>Diana was not willing. Camilla is willing.<br><br>I forecast a full-frontal attack on the Church of England.<br><br>Rowan Williams will not place the Crown on the head of the woman that destroyed Diana, the woman detested by the English people.<br><br>There is another faction within the Church of England, led by George Carey. Think Pat Robertson.<br><br>This fight for the soul of the Church is between Williams and Carey.<br>But it is ALL about Camilla Parker-Bowles.<br><br>I'll tell this story chronologically.<br><br>First, the opening shots at the beginning of June 2004.<br><br>Second, my intervention and the reply from Lambeth Palace.<br><br>Finally, the open warfare described in the Sunday Times today.<br><br>That will be three posts in all.<br><br>The opening shots<br><br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr><!--EZCODE FONT START--><span style="font-size:medium;">Camilla Parker Bowles: Lady in waiting</span><!--EZCODE FONT END--><br><br>By Melanie McDonagh<br>06 June 2004 <br>The Independent<br><br>So that's that. To judge by this week's papers, there's nothing now to prevent the Prince of Wales from making an "honest woman", as <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>George Carey</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END-->, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, put it, of Camilla Parker Bowles. <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>The Times assured its readers on Friday that "the Church says Charles can marry". It explained that the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, has approved the marriage after "secret talks" with the Prince last year - a claim which Lambeth Palace has denied.</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--><br><br>The question of whether the Prince of Wales should marry his mistress surfaces every few months. The occasion for rehearsing the arguments now is the publication of the memoirs of <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>George Carey, who revealed this week that he is in favour</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END-->; although all such debates are premised on one entirely unproven assumption: that Camilla Parker Bowles actually wants to become Queen.<br><br>SNIP<br><br>The creepiest aspect of Charles and Cami-lla's continuing liaison was that Mrs Parker Bowles scrutinised Charles' prospective brides, including the young Diana Spencer. The affair continued right up to the week before the wedding and, according to Diana, it never ceased. Paul Burrell, Diana's enterprising butler, revealed a letter from the Princess to the Duke of Edinburgh declaring that Charles was "never emotionally divorced from [Camilla]". She also wrote that "Charles told me that you said that if the marriage was not working well after five years, he could essentially return to Camilla." Long before five years were out, he did so.<br><br>There is no getting round the fact, then, that Camilla was a powerful contributory factor in the disintegration of the Wales's marriage, which, given the shared responsibility with Charles, meant that remarriage in Church was not an option.<br><br>Indeed, the Prince of Wales's circle have simply let it be known that marriage has been "discussed" between the two of them and emphasised that it would be out of the question before Prince Harry turns 21. Certainly, the Prince's hangers-on would love to formalise their adulation of Mrs Parker Bowles. <hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--> <p></p><i></i>
antiaristo
 
Posts: 2555
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 9:50 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

The Correspondence

Postby antiaristo » Sun Apr 16, 2006 6:22 pm

My intervention<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>C/Eusebio Navarro, 12<br>35003 Las Palmas de Gran<br>Dr Rowan Williams                                Spain                Canaria<br>Archbishop of Canterbury                         8 June 2004 <br>(Correos Cert.        84574 ES)<br><br>Your Grace,<br>I write further to my copy letters to Sir Michael Peat (Enclosed).<br><br>I am moved to once again put words on paper by the extraordinary comments published by the retired Dr Carey. That he should slander a dead woman whose death, might I remind you, is the subject of a murder “inquiry”, runs counter to any notion of Christian conscience. Would you please be so kind as to have your office relay to him a copy of my remarks to Sir John Stevens of 12 January this year?<br><br>To set up the dead Diana as the “baddie”, thus making Camilla the “goodie”, with an innocent Charles drawn naturally to the latter and repulsed by the former, is a grotesque inversion worthy of Bush. To pretend that this marriage campaign is anything other than a matter of State is a betrayal of the people and a lie of Blair proportions.<br><br>The fact of the matter, Your Grace, is that the Windsors and the Bushes are absolutely desperate to create a new queen. The foundation of the Windsor Tyranny is the Treason Felony Act of 1848, which outlaws any opposition of any nature whatsoever to the person of “our Most Gracious Lady the Queen”. For the past hundred and fifty-six years there have been one, two or even (as in 1953) three queens simultaneously. But if there is no queen, there is no Treason Felony Act, and no wholesale criminalization of the Anglo/American working class.<br><br>You yourself spoke out loudly against the invasion of Iraq. We know it was an illegal unjust and immoral war of choice. Yet Britain could never have taken part in this vile aggression had there been no queen. This war was forced down the throats of the people by means of lies and forgeries enabled and empowered by the Treason Felony Act. <br><br>FOR THE AVOIDANCE OF DOUBT: IF YOU CHEAT AND “BEND THE RULES” AS DR CAREY IS SUGGESTING, YOU WILL BE SOWING THE SEEDS FOR MANY FUTURE WARS OF AGGRESSION.<br><br>Dr Carey suggests the couple be left to make the decision for themselves. This self-dealing is directly analogous to the self-dealing on the vast estate built up by the Queen Mother. Everybody has to pay taxes, except for any queen. Will Queen Camilla be any different, I wonder? For make no mistake: if Charles marries Camilla, and Charles becomes King, then Mrs Parker Bowles becomes the Sovereign. She can do anything, including kill the King, and nobody can stop her. SHE IS THE WOLF IN SHEEP’S’ CLOTHING.<br><br>As a Christian I must say that I object strongly to Carey’s introduction of class discrimination into the love of Jesus. How can it be that Carey claims the love and compassion of Jesus on behalf of those he knows to deny that same love to members of the working class? Those he knows to have deliberately stolen our very souls?<br><br>Jesus had his own words for the Pharisees, did he not?<br><br>I take it you already know about all about the pain and suffering and desolation I have endured these last ten years on the run from the many sadists amongst the Windsors. No income and dependent on charity. Never daring to go near my beloved daughters Victoria and Georgia, for fear of broken bones. Knowing that my own life could be snuffed out at any moment, as they have snuffed out so many others. But I’ve said all this before, and shown all the proof to the European Court of Human Rights. It makes no difference at all to these “young lovers”, and I’ve no chance of ever getting back my children while there is a queen.<br><br>If you do not already know then the documents are on file at the Court (ref. 24316/03 John Cleary v United Kingdom) and can be accessed at any time up to November this year. With respect, your duty is to protect your flock. We neither want, need nor deserve another Killer Queen.<br>RSVP                                <br><br><!--EZCODE CENTER START--><div style="text-align:center">Yours sincerely,<br><br>John Cleary <br>Grandson of the Scribe & Child of God</div><!--EZCODE CENTER END--><br><br>Enc        Cleary to Peat 16/11, 26/11, 11/12, 14/12/2002<br>Peat to Cleary 21/11, 1/12/2002<br>        Cleary to Stevens 12/1/2004<br>Cleary to Reid (European Court of Human Rights) 10/10/2003<br>        <br>Cc        Dr David Hope, Archbishop of York        (with enclosures)<br>        Alan Beith MP<br>        His Holiness Patriarch Alexy II<br>        His Holiness Pope John Paul II        <hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br><br>And the reply from Lambeth Palace<br><br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>{Mitre and Shield} <!--EZCODE CENTER START--><div style="text-align:center"><!--EZCODE FONT START--><span style="font-size:x-small;">THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND<br>LAMBETH PALACE</span><!--EZCODE FONT END--></div><!--EZCODE CENTER END--><br><br><!--EZCODE CENTER START--><div style="text-align:center">Mr Andrew Nunn<br><!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>Lay Assistant to<br>The Archbishop of Canterbury</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--></div><!--EZCODE CENTER END--><br><br>Mr J Cleary<br>C/Eusebio Navarro, 12<br>35003 Las Palmas de Gran Canaria <br>Spain<br><br><!--EZCODE CENTER START--><div style="text-align:center">16 June, 2004</div><!--EZCODE CENTER END--><br><br><br>Dear Mr Cleary,<br><br>Thank you for your recent letter received here at Lambeth Palace. As your comments relate to remarks made by or attributed to Lord Carey, the correspondence is being forwarded to him at the House of Lords.<br><br>With very best wishes,<br><br>Andrew Nunn<br><br><br><!--EZCODE CENTER START--><div style="text-align:center">Lambeth Palace, London SE1 7JU</div><!--EZCODE CENTER END--><hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br> <p></p><i></i>
antiaristo
 
Posts: 2555
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 9:50 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

The Outbreak of War

Postby antiaristo » Sun Apr 16, 2006 6:30 pm

From the Sunday Times today<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>The Sunday Times April 16, 2006 <br><br><!--EZCODE FONT START--><span style="font-size:small;">Open letter tells Carey: end feud with archbishop</span><!--EZCODE FONT END--><br><br>Christopher Morgan<br> <br>A PERSONAL feud between the Archbishop of Canterbury and his predecessor has burst into the open with the Easter release of a letter demanding an end to the “disloyalty” of Lord Carey. <br><br>The letter accuses Carey of attempting to set himself up as an “alternative leader” to Rowan Williams after a series of interventions on highly sensitive issues. Carey has become a figurehead for those attempting to stop Williams taking the church in a liberal direction over issues such as women bishops, gay clergy and accommodation with Islam. <br><br>Supporters of Williams, who succeeded Carey in 2002, have drawn up the open letter and anticipate that 15 bishops will sign it. The letter will be sent to Carey and published soon. <br><br>Michael Marshall, Assistant Bishop of London, said: “I will put my signature to that immediately.” Colin Slee, Dean of Southwark, who also intends to sign the letter, said: “There is a steadily increasing anxiety that one narrow sector of the church is trying to reject our broad Anglican generosity.” <br><br>John Gladwin, Bishop of Chelmsford, said: “The Archbishop of Canterbury has a right to the full support of all the bishops and the primates across the world as we try to sort out the challenges that face us today.” <br><br>The letter to Carey says: “Your actions in retirement are . . . discourteous to Archbishop Rowan Williams as he attempts to hold together the Anglican communion . . . [He] deserves our respect and support, not the disloyalty which you currently display. <br><br>“We respectfully request that you desist from further intrusions into areas now beyond your control, and honour the convention of not undermining the work of your successor.” <br><br>While the letter is intended to help Williams, it highlights splits over his leadership. <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>In February he had to deny rumours he was planning to retire early</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END-->, in 2008. Lambeth Palace is said to be “saddened” by the frequency with which Carey “pops up” to take positions that increase his successor’s difficulties. <br><br>Interventions seen as unhelpful include Carey’s comment that he was “<!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>ashamed to be an Anglican</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END-->” after the General Synod decided with Williams’s support to review church investments in Caterpillar, whose bulldozers have been used by the Israeli government to attack Palestinian buildings. <br><br>Carey also infuriated liberals when he travelled to Virginia in 2004 to conduct confirmations of 300 church members opposed to homosexual clergy. The letter says of the trip: “<!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>You appear to be offering yourself as an alternative leader</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END-->.” <br><br>Carey has been at odds with Williams since at least 1998, when he opposed his nomination to the bishopric of Southwark. <br><br><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>Williams was disappointed by Carey’s disclosure of private meetings with members of the royal family in his 2004 autobiography. Williams has told friends Carey’s remarks made him feel compromised in trying to establish a private, pastoral relationship with the royal family.</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> <br><br>About nine of the Church of England’s 44 diocesan bishops are thought broadly to back Carey’s conservative stance; about 12 believe Williams is insufficiently liberal, while the remaining 23 broadly support him. <br><br>Carey said: “I am fully supportive of the Archbishop of Canterbury. The authors of the open letter seem intent on creating division where there is none.” <br><br>In his Easter sermon today, Williams will warn that the “conspiracies and cover-ups” portrayed by books such as The Da Vinci Code and the recently discovered Gospel of Judas may appeal to readers’ liking for mysteries, but believing such stories is an easy option for people who find the biblical message too difficult to understand.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--> <br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2136641,00.html">www.timesonline.co.uk/art...41,00.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>They are at war.<br>And it's all about the Coronation. <p></p><i></i>
antiaristo
 
Posts: 2555
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 9:50 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Is Parliament Waking From It's Slumber?

Postby antiaristo » Tue Apr 18, 2006 7:37 am

I'm posting this here because of the personalities, the timing and the contradictions.<br><br>This is Lord Falconer, about whom I have written much. Suffice it to say that he is the constitutional "fixer" for the Queen.<br><br>So far as I am aware this is the first time the Commons (the elected chamber) has done anything proactive on constitutional matters these last two years. Everything has been handled by the (unelected) Lords, under Lord Holme of Cheltenham.<br><br>This Commons committee is chaired by Alan Beith.<br>That is the same Alan Beith that received all the documentation I sent to the Archbishop of Canterbury (see upthread).<br><br>He has been keeping his head down. Not exactly Cromwell.<br><br>I'm just wondering whether this session has been forced upon him by the members of the committee.<br><br><br>You will see they intend to call Lord Levy.<br>Yet the Public Accounts Committee, led by Dr Tony Wright, backed down on this very matter. Wright suspended his hearings in deference to the police investigation.<br><br>He made many threats, but has done nothing.<br><br>In the same way the Electoral Commission was on the point of meeting the two party treasurers when its own investigation was suspended.<br><br>John Yates was left as the sole investigator.<br>And he is as bent as a nine-bob note.<br><br>See this thread<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://p216.ezboard.com/frigorousintuitionfrm10.showMessage?topicID=2221.topic">p216.ezboard.com/frigorou...2221.topic</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr><!--EZCODE FONT START--><span style="font-size:small;">Falconer to face 'cash for peerages' questions</span><!--EZCODE FONT END--> <br><br>By Ben Russell and Richard Garner <br>Published: 18 April 2006 <br><br>Lord Falconer will face angry questions from MPs tomorrow over the "cash for peerages" affair, amid warnings that the episode has damaged democracy and sapped trust in politics. <br><br>Lord Falconer, a close friend and ally of the Prime Minister, will face close questioning over the affair when he gives evidence to the all-party Constitutional Affairs Committee. <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>As Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, Lord Falconer is responsible for political reform</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> and is likely to play a part in any overhaul of the honours system. MPs are likely to call senior fundraisers such as Labour's Lord Levy and the party treasurer Jack Dromey to give evidence.<br><br>They called for long-term reform to restore faith in Parliament as teachers' leaders lambasted Tony Blair for "sleaze and cronyism". They called for the Prime Minister to be jailed if he was found guilty of condoning the offer of peerages to sponsors of his independently-run inner city academies.<br><br>The National Union of Teachers conference backed a motion condemning the notion a sponsor could gain a peerage for donating £10m to the academies.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--> <br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article358357.ece">news.independent.co.uk/uk...358357.ece</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>What is going on is nothing less than the final battle of the English Civil War.<br><br>I will explain why that is so with my next post. <p></p><i></i>
antiaristo
 
Posts: 2555
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 9:50 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Dr Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury

Postby antiaristo » Fri Apr 21, 2006 1:02 pm

First, to set the scene.<br>Dr Williams is Welsh, and a Druid.<br>But he is no friend of Freemasonry.<br><br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr><!--EZCODE FONT START--><span style="font-size:medium;">Archbishop resists picking masons for clergy posts</span><!--EZCODE FONT END--> <br><br>Stephen Bates<br>Saturday November 16, 2002<br>The Guardian <br><br><br>The Church of England sought to distance itself from freemasonry yesterday after Rowan Williams, the incoming archbishop of Canterbury, said he had resisted appointing masons to senior positions. <br><br>Bishops said they doubted there was a mason among them and insisted that there were few members of the secret society among the clergy. <br><br>In a letter to Hugh Sinclair, an author investigating the craft, Dr Williams stated: "I am not and have never been a mason; it is true I believe that this diocese had a number of masons among the clergy of a certain generation; I do not think that is true of the younger ones and <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>I have resisted the appointment of known masons to certain senior posts. I have real misgivings about the compatibility of masonry and Christian profession."</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> <br><br>It is more than 40 years since the then archbishop of Canterbury, <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>Geoffrey Fisher, was grand chaplain for the United Grand Lodge of England.</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> <br><br>A Church of England spokesman said Dr Williams' position was the same as the church's, which questions the compatibility of masonry with Christianity. In 1987, the last time the issue was raised, a church report indicated that some Christian masons had reservations. <br><br>Both Anglicanism and the Catholic church historically have official difficulties with freemasonry.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--> <br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,841275,00.html">www.guardian.co.uk/religi...75,00.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>See that reference to Geoffrey Fisher, Freemason?<br>Here is the full text of the Bishops' letter to George Carey.<br><br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr><!--EZCODE FONT START--><span style="font-size:small;">Open letter to Lord Carey of Clifton</span><!--EZCODE FONT END--> <br> <br> <br>Dear Bishop Carey<br><br><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>Many of us remember the discourtesy displayed by Archbishop Geoffrey Fisher in retirement when he offered embarrassing critiques of his successor Michael Ramsey, and policies then being implemented by the Church of England.</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--><br> <br>Your actions in retirement are similarly discourteous to Archbishop Rowan Williams, as he attempts to hold together the Anglican Communion of churches at a particularly difficult time.<br><br>By your visit to the USA to conduct a confirmation for 300 candidates unable to accept the authority of their own bishops, and your role in the current survey of American bishops on their attitude to the consecration of Bishop Gene Robinson and the future of the Episcopal Church, you appear to be offering yourself as an alternative leader.<br><br>The Archbishop of Canterbury deserves our respect and support, not the disloyalty which you currently display.<br><br>We respectfully request that you desist from further intrusions into areas now beyond your control, and honour the convention of not undermining the work of your successor.<br><br>Yours in Christ<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2136284,00.html">www.timesonline.co.uk/art...84,00.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>Two observations.<br>First, the echo going back forty years to Geoffrey Fisher, Freemason.<br>Are the Bishops not seeking to signal that we have the identical situation today?<br><br>Second, the reporting by the Times (RupertsRag)<br><br>The comparison with Fisher is not mentioned in the main story. Even though that story is much longer than the letter itself, and even though there is space for superfluous information about the da Vinci Code.<br><br>There is nothing about the opening paragraph, presumably the main point the Bishops were making.<br><br>Does Murdoch have an agenda here?<br>Too bloody right he does!<br> <br> <p></p><i></i>
antiaristo
 
Posts: 2555
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 9:50 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

The English Civil War 1640 - 1645

Postby antiaristo » Sun Apr 23, 2006 4:46 pm

This fight within the Church of England is part of a larger re-run of the original Civil War. It is about the same issue. It is about the Divine Right of Kings.<br><br>Is the King, or the Queen (or her placeman, in the person of Charles) subject to the law of the land?<br><br>And if so, who will enforce the law against the most powerful person in that land?<br><br>The original war was fought between King Charles and the forces of Parliament, led by Oliver Cromwell.<br><br>The outcome of that war was the Act of Settlement.<br>That law debars Charles Windsor from the Throne.<br>But Queen Elizabeth uses her powers to frustrate that law.<br><br>The English Parliament is no more.<br>And the English Crown become part of a transnational portfolio.<br><br>So the Church of England has stepped into the breach.<br><br>Dr Williams is Cromwell, a courageous Welshman in defence of the rule of law, on behalf of the people.<br><br>And a Druid (like his opponent).<br><br><br><!--EZCODE UNDERLINE START--><span style="text-decoration:underline">BACKGROUND</span><!--EZCODE UNDERLINE END--><br><br>The basic law that controls the United Kingdom is the Treason Felony Act of 1848.<br><br>{The text of this law, together with analyses and a case example to explain this assertion, is here <!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://p216.ezboard.com/frigorousintuitionfrm9.showMessage?topicID=93.topic">p216.ezboard.com/frigorou...D=93.topic</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--> }<br><br>It has been so for approximately 120 years.<br><br>This was EMERGENCY legislation passed at an extraordinary time. The Communist Manifesto, revolutions across Europe, the fourth cosecutive year of mass starvation in Ireland and the growing influence of Tom Paine.<br><br>It was passed SPECIFICALLY for Victoria, in order to bolster her position at such a time of crisis.<br><br>Accordingly it specifies "our Most Gracious Lady the Queen".<br><br>There is no mention of a king. THERE <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>WAS</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> NO KING.<br><br>The "emergency legislation" was never repealed. It is still the law of the land, even though clearly unconstitutional.<br><br>But people are not talking.<br><br>That law has been used for their own secret purposes by every queen since Victoria.<br><br>Alexandra, Mary, Elizabeth and Elizabeth.<br><br>They have ALL been using this law, and with growing extravagance, this last 105 years. Each has used the powers granted to themselves by this law to prevent any repeal. And each has used the law to ensure their own replacement by another queen, thereby maintaining this cycle of captivity.<br><br>Queen Elizabeth is presently doing exactly that, with Camilla Parker Bowles. She is seeking to use her own power to overrule the law of the land.<br><br><!--EZCODE UNDERLINE START--><span style="text-decoration:underline">PRECEDENT</span><!--EZCODE UNDERLINE END--><br><br>The last time that the Windsor family faced the loss of these unlimited powers was in 1936, during what became known as the Abdication Crisis.<br><br>When King George V died he was succeeded by his eldest son and heir, Edward Prince of Wales, who became King Edward VIII.<br><br>But Edward WAS NOT MARRIED.<br>There would be no queen sitting on the Throne.<br>The Treason Felony Act would fall redundant, since there was no "her"to "put any force or constraint upon".<br><br>But there WAS still a queen.<br>Queen Mary was the widow of the deceased King George V.<br>Queen Mary used the Treason Felony Act to force Edward to abdicate.<br>It had nothing to do with Stanley Baldwin, who in any case had sworn loyalty to Edward.<br><br>Mary forced Edward to abdicate, and replaced him with his younger brother, for the simple reason that his younger brother had married in 1923. His wife (later the Queen Mother) was a known quatity of whom Queen Mary obviously approved.<br><br>So you can see the import that the Heir has a wife.<br><br><!--EZCODE UNDERLINE START--><span style="text-decoration:underline">DIANA AND HER REPLACEMENT</span><!--EZCODE UNDERLINE END--><br><br>Charles Windsor has plotted and schemed in secret for years. He lusts for the powers bestowed by the Act. But he must have a compliant queen to secure those powers and to sign the documents.<br><br>He has created a counterfeit "wife" to that end.<br><br>He intends that she be called "Queen", and that she is therefore able to invoke the provisions of the Act.<br><br>If he succeeds, this nightmarish dictatorship with its hands on the throat of the English-speaking world will continue without end.<br><br>If he fails, the people will recover their liberty, government and self-respect.<br><br>Diana broke the chain. She gave us this one opportunity to break the cycle of Killer Queens.<br><br>And paid with her life.<br><br>She knew what was coming.<br><br>"My husband intends to kill me.....so that Charles is free to marry."<br><br>But she did it anyhow. She knew how much was at stake.<br><br>"I would rather be with those down below, than with those up above."<br><br><!--EZCODE UNDERLINE START--><span style="text-decoration:underline">CONCLUSION</span><!--EZCODE UNDERLINE END--><br><br>With no English Parliament in existence, there is only the English Church to defend the rule of law.<br><br>Charles has taken this into account in his plotting and scheming.<br><br>He has made his plans,<br><br>The Church of England is under attack.<br><br>From within, led by Bishop George Carey.<br><br>And from without, led by Professor Robert Hazell.<br><br> <p></p><i></i>
antiaristo
 
Posts: 2555
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 9:50 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Scots wanted to abolish the Act of Settlement

Postby trachys » Mon Apr 24, 2006 11:17 am

You present an interesting and provocative narrative. I'd like to know how you interpret the motivation behind this move by the Scottish parliament ...<br><br>from: <!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/monarchy/story/0,2763,407460,00.html">www.guardian.co.uk/monarc...60,00.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>In December 1999 the Scottish parliament backed unanimously a motion, spearheaded by the Scottish National party, to abolish the Act of Settlement. The debate had been initiated by Lord Hamilton - Tory whip in the Scottish parliament - who wrote to the Tony Blair asking him to lift the "anachronistic" act.<br> <p></p><i></i>
trachys
 
Posts: 78
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2005 11:47 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

The Scottish Interest

Postby antiaristo » Mon Apr 24, 2006 4:39 pm

trachys,<br>Thanks for that. I hadn't seen it before as it was published during my "blind period". I must confess, I'm pretty angry about it.<br><br>ALL of the problems go back to the Act of Union of 1707. They created "Great Britain" by unifying the crowns of England and Scotland. But they did not unify the two nations' legal systems. Consequently there are English people, subject to English law, and there are Scottish people, subject to Scottish law. But there are no British people because there is no "British" law nor "British" territory where it operates (whatever Gordon Brown may preach). There is only the British Crown, which has decided it is lawful to "shoot-to-kill" English people in England, but NOT lawful to "shoot-to-kill" Scottish people in Scotland.<br><br>The best analogy is corporate (now THERE'S A CLUE!). "great Britain" is the holding company. England (and Wales) and Scotland are the two operating companies. The two operating companies are completely independent of each other and are RUN DIFFERENTLY.<br><br>The Act of Settlement is English law regulating the English Crown. It has absolutely nothing to do with with Scotland, and it is a black mark against the Scottish Parliament that they took such a position. Much more honest would be for the Scottish Parliament to argue for the separation of the crowns of England and Scotland. Then the Scottish Parliament could do as it wishes with the Scottish Crown. That would be the ethical position for the SNP.<br><br>But they won't do that. They would lose their control over London, hub of Empire.<br><br>I've written much, sometimes with too much passion, on this thread <!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://p216.ezboard.com/frigorousintuitionfrm10.showMessage?topicID=3543.topic">p216.ezboard.com/frigorou...3543.topic</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>What they have done is to turn "Great Britain" into a concentration camp, but have given Scotland an opt-out with the Scottish Parliament.<br><br>Please, let's have a discussion, either here or on that thread I've just referenced. <p></p><i></i>
antiaristo
 
Posts: 2555
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 9:50 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Masons a Plottin'

Postby antiaristo » Fri Apr 28, 2006 5:22 pm

The Vatican and Buckingham Palace share a common interest, and a common enemy.<br><br>They BOTH want Camilla Parker Bowles on the Throne.<br><br>Buckingham Palace wants her there so she can carry on with "tradition".<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://p216.ezboard.com/frigorousintuitionfrm9.showMessage?topicID=93.topic">p216.ezboard.com/frigorou...D=93.topic</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>The Vatican wants her there because she is a Catholic.<br><br>The Vatican doesn't give a shit about the people of England, or their souls.<br><br>Only the Church of England cares.<br><br>With that context, this piece becomes more interesting.<br>I'll give my own explanation below.<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>3.15pm <br><br>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br><!--EZCODE FONT START--><span style="font-size:medium;">Cherie Blair gets surprise audience with Pope</span><!--EZCODE FONT END--> <br><br>Press Association<br>Friday April 28, 2006 <br><br><br>Cherie Blair had a surprise 10-minute private audience with Pope Benedict XVI today, as she was attending a Vatican conference on children and young people. <br>The UK ambassador to the Holy See, Francis Campbell, said the prime minister's wife was "thrilled" by the unexpected conversation, which took place in the Pope's library. <br><br>A spokesperson for Mrs Blair had earlier said she would not meet the pontiff, but Mr Campbell explained: "It was completely unexpected. There was to be a general audience next Tuesday for delegates to the conference but Mrs Blair isn't staying that long and <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>we found out this morning that the Pope wanted to meet her and invited her for a purely private audience and they had a one-to-one conversation for 10 minutes</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END-->. <br><br>"It was a suprise to me as well, but she is thrilled by it and the Pope had a 10-minute conversation with Mrs Blair in his library. She was very honoured, excited and thrilled because it was so unexpected." <br><br>The surprise nature of the audience meant Mrs Blair, a devout Roman Catholic, was dressed in white, rather than the traditional black worn when meeting the Pontiff. <br><br>Mrs Blair and the premier had met the late Pope John Paul II in 2003, and this afternoon she prayed at his tomb before visiting the English College in Rome. <br><br>Before meeting Pope Benedict Mrs Blair delivered a speech on social policy and children and young people to the conference organised by Professor Pierpaolo Donati of the University of Bologna, titled: "Vanishing Youth? Solidarity with Young People in an Age of Turbulence." <br><br>It was part of the plenary session of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences. <br><br>Mrs Blair, a QC, human rights lawyer and a mother of four, is listed by the Vatican as an outside expert. <br><br>Her speech was not being released to the media. She was not paid for her attendance, a spokesperson stressed. <br><br>Other speakers include Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, president of the Pontifical Council on the Family. <br><br>Issues tabled for discussion include the effect of the media on children, their educational and psychological needs and children's rights.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--> <br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://politics.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,1763917,00.html">politics.guardian.co.uk/n...17,00.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>John Paul II was a great friend of the Scottish Rite. The Windsors can't do enough to help Opus Dei.<br><br>I suspect they cut a deal, brokered by Grimaldi.<br><br>I suspect he agreed to sanction a marriage between the Prince of Wales and Camilla Parker-Bowles.<br><br>It is entirely possible that my second letter to Kofi Annan scuppered the deal.<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://p216.ezboard.com/frigorousintuitionfrm9.showMessageRange?topicID=6.topic&start=21&stop=40">p216.ezboard.com/frigorou...21&stop=40</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>Both the Pope and Grimaldi died shortly thereafter.<br>And the Windsors staged an illegal marriage ceremony.<br><br>Perhaps the deal is back on the table?<br><br>And is there more significance to the "dressed in white" bit, given that neither the Vatican nor Buckenham Palace "do" surprises?<br> <p></p><i></i>
antiaristo
 
Posts: 2555
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 9:50 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Plan B

Postby antiaristo » Sat Apr 29, 2006 10:51 am

Are they getting rattled?<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr><!--EZCODE FONT START--><span style="font-size:medium;">Wedding Bells for Prince William?</span><!--EZCODE FONT END--><br><br>By Paul Majendie, Reuters<br><br>LONDON (April 2<!--EZCODE EMOTICON START 8) --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/glasses.gif ALT="8)"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> - Tabloid newspapers are speculating that Britain's Prince William, <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>23</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END-->, is about to propose to his girlfriend Kate Middleton on holiday in the Caribbean.<br><br>The elder son of heir to the throne Britain's Prince Charles and the late Princess Diana is flying to the island of Mustique on Friday to join the 24-year-old Middleton, the Evening Standard reported on Friday.<br><br>The London newspaper, which broke the news of Camilla Parker Bowles' engagement to Britain's Prince Charles, said William sought advice on the best place to hide away from prying paparazzi lenses.<br><br>Mustique was the favorite holiday destination of William's great aunt, Princess Margaret. Her son Viscount Linley sold her villa on Mustique to cover death duties.<br><br>Feverish speculation about a royal engagement began in The Mail on Sunday with the banner headline "<!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>Kate takes William on holiday -- but will he pop the question</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END-->?"<br><br>William has in the past said he did not want to get married until he is at least 28 or 30 but the paper breathlessly reported they could be just "weeks away" from being engaged.<br><br>But Judy Wade, royal correspondent for the celebrity gossip magazine Hello, felt the rumor mill was over-reaching itself.<br><br>"I think this romance is serious but today young couples live together for a while. And William wants to be sure, and not have a disaster like his parents," she told Reuters.<br><br><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>"I don't think he will get married until next year at the earliest</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END-->."<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://articles.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20060428080209990005">articles.news.aol.com/new...0209990005</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--> <p></p><i></i>
antiaristo
 
Posts: 2555
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 9:50 am
Blog: View Blog (0)


Return to Religion and the Occult

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests