Queen Elizabeth II: The Largest Landowner On Earth

[sentient being]

http://www.whoownstheworld.com/about-the-book/largest-landowner/?ref=patrick.net

Largest Landowner

“Queen Elizabeth II the largest landowner on Earth.”


Queen Elizabeth II, head of state of the United Kingdom and of 31 other states and territories, is the legal owner of about 6,600 million acres of land, one sixth of the earth’s non ocean surface.

She is the only person on earth who owns whole countries, and who owns countries that are not her own domestic territory. This land ownership is separate from her role as head of state and is different from other monarchies where no such claim is made – Norway, Belgium, Denmark etc.

The value of her land holding. £17,600,000,000,000 (approx).

This makes her the richest individual on earth. However, there is no way easily to value her real estate. There is no current market in the land of entire countries. At a rough estimate of $5,000 an acre, and based on the sale of Alaska to the USA by the Tsar, and of Louisiana to the USA by France, the Queen’s land holding is worth a notional $33,000,000,000,000 (Thirty three trillion dollars or about £17,600,000,000,000). Her holding is based on the laws of the countries she owns and her land title is valid in all the countries she owns. Her main holdings are Canada, the 2nd largest country on earth, with 2,467 million acres, Australia, the 7th largest country on earth with 1,900 million acres, the Papua New Guinea with114 million acres, New Zealand with 66 million acres and the UK with 60 million acres.

She is the world’s largest landowner by a significant margin. The next largest landowner is the Russian state, with an overall ownership of 4,219 million acres, and a direct ownership comparable with the Queen’s land holding of 2,447 million acres. The 3rd largest landowner is the Chinese state, which claims all of Chinese land, about 2,365 million acres. The 4th largest landowner on earth is the Federal Government of the United States, which owns about one third of the land of the USA, 760 million acres. The fifth largest landowner on earth is the King of Saudi Arabia with 553 million acres

Largest five personal landowners on Earh Queen Elizabeth II 6,600 million acres
King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia 553 million acres
King Bhumibol of Thailand 126 million acres
King Mohammed IV of Morocco 113 million acres
Sultan Quaboos of Oman 76 million acres



"So much for The Overpopulation Myth"

[sentient being]

Now that I come to think of it. It seems like the Brit Royals and Arab Royals are definitely kissing cousins, as some have alluded too. Hmmmm...quite interesting.

[kde_]

That's a lotta land when people are packed into citys and tower blocks she should feel ashamed.

[bobbydiva]

Want land does she own?

[curtaincat]

Ahem, this has been posted before, but thanks for posting ... as Troy McClure would say... that guy from the Simpsons, who is in millions of crappy movies, lol.

You sound just like him :p ;)

[skunksmash]

no one really owns anything except the body they were born into this world with.......:confused:

royalty own NOTHING in reality, they just did a lot of ''rape & pillage'' back in the day & LAID CLAIM to all they're eyes rested on.

how dare the queen presume she actually owns this land, its not hers or her family's, we ALL just reside here on this earth, we do not ''own'' a thing, add to that the fact that in order to ''own'' something you've probably paid for it out of money which has no value anyway....

so land is traded upon a monetary system created by these monsters, which is worthless.:rolleyes: IMO


THE EARTH BELONGS TO THE EARTH....... NO ONE ELSE!! :mad:



:)SK

[decim]

Evil, Nasty, White British Rule Earth!

[vetis]

no one really owns anything except the body they were born into this world with.......:confused:

royalty own NOTHING in reality, they just did a lot of ''rape & pillage'' back in the day & LAID CLAIM to all they're eyes rested on.

how dare the queen presume she actually owns this land, its not hers or her family's, we ALL just reside here on this earth, we do not ''own'' a thing, add to that the fact that in order to ''own'' something you've probably paid for it out of money which has no value anyway....

so land is traded upon a monetary system created by these monsters, which is worthless.:rolleyes: IMO


THE EARTH BELONGS TO THE EARTH....... NO ONE ELSE!! :mad:



:)SK

i hate people saying that. besides the earth doesnt have any concept of ownership. we do, tough luck.

[curtaincat]

ew, a bit harsh ... :rolleyes:

[skunksmash]

i hate people saying that. besides the earth doesnt have any concept of ownership. we do, tough luck.


lol..... & your RIGHT to ownership comes from where..??


dont delude yourself, the only reason these ppl can say they ''own'' land is due to their activities in medieval times, then as time went on they ''created'' deeds for this land THEMSELVES....

if i wrote on a piece of paper....''the bearer of this document is the sole owner of 50 acres in the Yorkshire dales'', does that then mean i ''OWN'' it b/c the earth has no concept of ownership.?? :rolleyes:, or do i have to be a ''royal'' descendant to legitimately claim land..


dont talk wet......



:confused:SK

[curtaincat]

lol..... & your RIGHT to ownership comes from where..??


dont delude yourself, the only reason these ppl can say they ''own'' land is due to their activities in medieval times, then as time went on they ''created'' deeds for this land THEMSELVES....

if i wrote on a piece of paper....''the bearer of this document is the sole owner of 50 acres in the Yorkshire dales'', does that then mean i ''OWN'' it b/c the earth has no concept of ownership.?? :rolleyes:, or do i have to be a ''royal'' descendant to legitimately claim land..


dont talk wet......




:confused:SK


it does get wet under the bridge that trolls inhabit, dont blame him, he is just a troll, :rolleyes: ;)

[squeakamuffin]

Its obvious that the Queen has purchased all that land to try to have some sort of influence on a global level without resorting to politics.

But in that context it begs the question what sort of influence? And why does she have to accumulate all that land?

Does Elizabeth know something we dont?...

[sentient being]

Its obvious that the Queen has purchased all that land to try to have some sort of influence on a global level without resorting to politics.

But in that context it begs the question what sort of influence? And why does she have to accumulate all that land?

Does Elizabeth know something we dont?...




Did you say puchase? Baaawaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Oh Oh Oh, oh, Thanks. That was a good one!

[sentient being]

Bump.

[sentient being]

Bump

[rodin]

Evil, Nasty, White British Rule Earth!

I hope I detect sarcasm :D

[rodin]

Its obvious that the Queen has purchased all that land to try to have some sort of influence on a global level without resorting to politics.

But in that context it begs the question what sort of influence? And why does she have to accumulate all that land?

Does Elizabeth know something we dont?...

Hint : look at Princess Anne's nose :)

[sentient being]

Up.

[hadabusa]

now add how papacy rules over monarchs and its complete.

its not true nobody can own, only be tenant.

the very elite think they can claim.

we peasant cant.

angry yet?:mad::mad::mad:

[sentient being]

now add how papacy rules over monarchs and its complete.

its not true nobody can own, only be tenant.

the very elite think they can claim.

we peasant cant.

angry yet?:mad::mad::mad:


Yes. Are people ever going to friking wake up?

[decim]

I hope you do also.

There are alot of Anglophobes on the DI forum.

I hope I detect sarcasm :D

[yozhik]

Its obvious that the Queen has purchased all that land to try to have some sort of influence on a global level without resorting to politics.


Ummm ... did you actually, seriously, intentionally write "purchase"???

Before the year 1066 the people of England held Allodial title to their land.
Not even the king could take the land for not paying a tithe. William the Conquer came in 1066
and stole the Kings Title and took the land of the people.

source (http://www.natural-person.ca/pdf/Beginning_of_the_Lie.PDF)

[hadabusa]

Yes. Are people ever going to friking wake up?
the queen has clothes
:D

[iwanttruth]

no one really owns anything except the body they were born into this world with.......:confused:

royalty own NOTHING in reality, they just did a lot of ''rape & pillage'' back in the day & LAID CLAIM to all they're eyes rested on.

how dare the queen presume she actually owns this land, its not hers or her family's, we ALL just reside here on this earth, we do not ''own'' a thing, add to that the fact that in order to ''own'' something you've probably paid for it out of money which has no value anyway....

so land is traded upon a monetary system created by these monsters, which is worthless.:rolleyes: IMO


THE EARTH BELONGS TO THE EARTH....... NO ONE ELSE!! :mad:



:)SK


I couldn't have put it better myself. Well said.

[cruise4]

Don't forget the role of 'inheritance'.

[sentient being]

Ok Alright.

[lase]

Have you noticed she owns 6.6 million acres of land.

Which is one 6th of the Earths Non ocean Surface.



I guess she settled on an area that resonated with her.

[decim]

1 square inch of error and your theory is bollocks'd.

Have you noticed she owns 6.6 million acres of land.

Which is one 6th of the Earths Non ocean Surface.



I guess she settled on an area that resonated with her.

[lase]

I'm sure she's worked it all out.

[rodin]

I hope you do also.

There are alot of Anglophobes on the DI forum.

Use yr own judgement

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=11464

Lady Die - name no accident surely?

[lase]

Incidentally, the film 'Lady Die' by Chris Everard eventually turned up, and it was terrible. I'd encourage it's avoidance at all costs. 25 quid n all you know.

We was robbed.

There's sooo much he fails to mention in the film that would give the viewer a scope for the evidence pointing towards connecting the site of her murder to a ritual act. And he spent the first 15 minutes talking about Henry the bloody 8th so It's not like it was a time issue.

23 out of 100.

If you're gonna buy anything off Enigma I'd suggest Illuminati II. (91 Out of 100)

[decim]

Lady Die, a regular Guinevere, for sure, if less fortunate.

Use yr own judgement

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=11464

Lady Die - name no accident surely?

[bendoon]

Its easy to bash the Royals, takes the spotlight off the real rulers.

[sentient being]

Its easy to bash the Royals, takes the spotlight off the real rulers.



All together now. Awwwwwwwwwwww

[sentient being]

I'll be in the maldiives for the next 6 weeks. I promised myself - no computer. Hopefully I'll be able to resist. Hey it's the Maldives!! So if anyone likes this thread, please feel free to keep it alive. Actually I MUST peep in to catch Lenon Honor's - "The Borg". So hopefully I'll remember myself to keep it alive.

Ciao Bellas.

[decim]

That plane doesn't look safe.

I'll be in the maldiives for the next 6 weeks. I promised myself - no computer. Hopefully I'll be able to resist. Hey it's the Maldives!! So if anyone likes this thread, please feel free to keep it alive. Actually I MUST peep in to catch Lenon Honor's - "The Borg". So hopefully I'll remember myself to keep it alive.

Ciao Bellas.

[sentient being]

Looks magnificent and safe to me:D

[sentient being]

Lucid Living.

[drc_]

Its obvious that the Queen has purchased all that land to try to have some sort of influence on a global level without resorting to politics.

But in that context it begs the question what sort of influence? And why does she have to accumulate all that land?

Does Elizabeth know something we dont?...

Purchased..?
Influence..?
Politics..?

If this is a serious question I would advise you to read around a bit on this forum. Or better yet, read David Icke's books!

Because boy are you in for a ride...

[squeakamuffin]

Please drc enlighten my ignorance.

Please do tell the truth about Elizabeth Windsor. And why she needs to keep and horde all that land.

[rodin]

Now that I come to think of it. It seems like the Brit Royals and Arab Royals are definitely kissing cousins, as some have alluded too. Hmmmm...quite interesting.

Just the extended Rothschild family probably

[foobar]

lol..... & your RIGHT to ownership comes from where..??


dont delude yourself, the only reason these ppl can say they ''own'' land is due to their activities in medieval times, then as time went on they ''created'' deeds for this land THEMSELVES....

if i wrote on a piece of paper....''the bearer of this document is the sole owner of 50 acres in the Yorkshire dales'', does that then mean i ''OWN'' it b/c the earth has no concept of ownership.?? :rolleyes:, or do i have to be a ''royal'' descendant to legitimately claim land..


dont talk wet......



:confused:SK

It comes down to a question of force. If somebody lays claim to a piece of land, and nobody else does, then a common law court will recognise their claim to prevent fighting over it.

[synergy777]

a good researcher on this stuff is kevin cahill. google him.


http://www.newstatesman.com/200409200005

Property scandal

A few rich people, many of them aristocrats, own 69 per cent of the land in Britain. As a result, house prices are so high, millions can't afford to buy a home. The NS launches a campaign to end this feudal system

For the past decade I have spent a week or so each year staying with family in the quiet Cumbrian village of Cark-in-Cartmel. The village is off the tourist track, south of the Lake District and a short drive from Lake Windermere, and an even shorter distance from the village of Cartmel, with its tight, cobbled streets, its racecourse, second-hand bookshops, tea shops and its exceptionally fine 12th-century priory church. The first time I visited Cark, I noticed something peculiar: most of the cottages and certainly all of the farms and outbuildings in the village and surrounding area were painted the same colour, what can only be described as kingfisher blue. These, I was told, were estate properties belonging to or leased from the Cavendish family, whose neo-Elizabethan mansion, Holker Hall, originally built in 1610 and partly rebuilt in the 19th century following a fire, is in the village of Cark.

Holker Estate owns more than 15,000 acres of land in south Cumbria, land that is used for anything from tourism to farming to commercial caravan sites. The estate controls the gates to the foreshore of Morecambe Bay, and thus has jurisdiction over fishing and cockling rights along this part of the remote Cumbrian coastline, from which, on a clear day, you can see in the far distance the ominous massing of the Heysham nuclear power station.

The owner of Holker Hall, Hugh Cavendish (Lord Cavendish of Furness), is part of the extended, intricate and secretive "cousinhood" - the 6,000 aristocratic families and their relatives who still own most of Britain and who, before the recent eviction of hereditary peers, exerted their influence and control over land ownership through the House of Lords. The present head of the Cavendish family is Peregrine Cavendish, 12th Duke of Devonshire. His father, Andrew, died in May this year. He was married to Deborah Mitford - the youngest of the six famous sisters, two of whom, Unity and Diana, were fascist-fanciers - and was celebrated in his obituaries as a kind of archetypal establishment toff: racehorse owner, one-time Tory activist, arts dilettante.

The Cavendish family, which first began to acquire vast tracts of land following the dissolution of the monasteries in the 16th century, and consolidated its wealth and position through marriage within the aristocracy, owns 65,000 acres of land in Britain and another 8,000 in the Republic of Ireland. Their residences include Chatsworth in Derbyshire, which attracts more than half a million paying visitors each year, as well as Holker Hall, Hardwick Hall in Derbyshire, Bolton Hall in Yorkshire, Compton Place in Eastbourne and several grand houses in central London.

Why should this one family, and others like them, own so much land when so many young people cannot afford to buy even a one-bedroomed flat? It is not impertinent to ask this question, nor is the motivation for asking it envy. Rather, in a period of prohibitively expensive property prices, when so many first-time buyers are shut out from the housing market; when we are continually being told that there is a shortage of new houses in the country and of land for building on; when asylum-seekers and economic migrants are made to feel unwelcome in our overcrowded towns - it is surely time that land reform in Britain once more became a matter for urgent political concern.

The United Kingdom is 60 million acres in size, of which 41 million are designated "agricultural" land, 15 million are "waste" (forests, rivers, mountains and so on) and owned mainly by the Ministry of Defence and the Forestry Commission, and four million are "urban plot", the land on which most of the 60 million people of these islands live. In sum, 69 per cent of the acreage of Britain is owned by 0.6 per cent of the population. Or, more pertinently, 158,000 families own 41 million acres of land while 24 million families live on four million acres.

Spain (where 70 per cent of the land is owned by 0.2 per cent of the population) is the only other European country in which so much land is concentrated in the hands of so few, if you exclude pseudo countries such as Luxembourg, Liechtenstein and Monaco. Even in Brazil, where the white elite have ruled with impunity for so long, land is more evenly distributed through-out the general population than it is in Britain.

"There is a myth in this country," says Kevin Cahill, author of the seminal Who Owns Britain (Canongate, 2001), "that land is scarce. It is not scarce. There is 41 million acres out there, about one-third of it so uneconomic that it has to be subsidised, hidden behind nothing but a myth. The problem is that there is simply not enough land coming on to the market for housing, which puts fierce pressure on the little land that is available, and thus dramatically inflates its price."

The hereditary landowners have been adept at protecting their interests - making plentiful land look scarce, and being paid from the public purse to keep it that way. The Land Act 1925 requires all land transactions in England and Wales to be registered. Registration is necessary only once a sale has been made; as such, many of the large estates, where ownership passes on through generations of the same family, have not been registered; to date, roughly 35 per cent of land in England and Wales remains unregistered. The Land Act was never debated in the Commons. Responsibility for debate was abdicated to the House of Lords, where the law was passed without discussion.

One of the reasons why landowners are so resistant to change, and indeed to registering just how much land they own, is that they receive huge subsidies, funded by British taxpayers through the European Union, simply for owning designated agricultural land that is frequently unproductive. (See the table on the next page.) Subsidy allows landowners to retain very expensive assets, while ensuring that not enough land reaches the market.

At the same time, the rest of us - ordinary homeowners - are squeezed into ever smaller units of land and charged a punitive council tax. "In short," Cahill says, "money is being taken out of your pocket to enhance the assets of the rich, who, in their role of landowners, pay no tax. This is a huge fiddle and a scandal. To restore normal economics to the market place, the subsidy has to end and landowners have to come off the public payroll. They are not civil servants."

When I contacted Holker Estate to speak to Lord Cavendish, I was redirected to someone called Dickon Knight, the good lord's land agent. In well-modulated tones, he told me that the great landowners of Britain were "stewards" of the land: that without their presence, their care and their diligence, the British countryside would not be as well preserved as it is, or as attractive to tourists. "The estate takes a very paternalistic view of the local community," he told me. "Through farming, forestry, tourism and conservation, we contribute significantly to the vitality of the local economy. We also have common land, which the estate owns but over which other people have rights. Where you find large estates in the country you will find that the surrounding countryside is extraordinarily well cared for."

How did Lord Cavendish come to own so much land? "Through purchases and through transfers of land among families following marriages," said Knight.

Should land be redistributed from the large estates to the state to allow for housebuilding? "The present advice from the government is not to build on open countryside. We can only work through the present system."

In her powerful book World on Fire (Heinemann, 2003), Amy Chua, a professor at Yale Law School, writes of how many of the world's developing nations are dominated economically by ethnic elites which comprise a small percentage of the overall population: the Chinese in Indonesia and the Philippines, the Jews in Russia, white settlers in Zimbabwe (who are now in hasty and demoralised retreat), the Lebanese in West Africa, white people of European origin in Brazil, Venezuela, Ecuador and Peru, the Igbos in Nigeria. Chua argues that free markets concentrate wealth in the hands of the "market-dominant minority" even as experiments with democracy increasingly empower the often impoverished majority population. The result can be a potentially catastrophic ethnonationalism, "pitting a frustrated indigenous majority, easily aroused by opportunistic vote-seeking politicians, against a resented, wealthy ethnic minority".

The British aristocracy is, I would argue, a genuine market-dominant minority: centuries of inbreeding, to keep the bloodlines "pure", have created a tribe, a racially distinct sub-group of people who resemble one another, who have the same absurdly affected accents, who go to the same few schools, who protect each other's interests and who continue to exert their control over the land through the armed forces, the Conser- vative Party and the media, notably the Daily Telegraph, the country's bestselling broadsheet newspaper. Today, as with other market-dominant minorities elsewhere in the world, the landowning classes of Britain are threatened not by revolution, but by greater democracy - as represented by the rapid extension of home ownership.

The Peruvian economist Hernando de Soto, author of The Mystery of Capital: why capitalism triumphs in the west and fails everywhere else (Basic Books, 2000), has argued that a country cannot be considered truly free and democratic until most of the population owns a stake in the land. If developing nations are ever to thrive, then the poor of those nations must be granted legal title to their homes and businesses. Without property rights the poor cannot realise the value of the land on which they live and work; this has been the case in much of Africa, where people are forced to rely on extralegal and informal arrangements and where the untitled land of the poor is, as de Soto puts it, "dead capital".

This was largely the situation in Britain little more than a century ago. In 1873, when the four-volume Return of Owners of Land was published - a kind of second Domesday Book (the first was compiled in the aftermath of the Norman Conquest) - all land and homes in the United Kingdom were owned by just 3.6 per cent of the population of 27 million. "The key point," says Cahill, "is that 96.4 per cent of the population owned nothing at all, not a blade of grass. Now, and this is the great transformation, 69 per cent of the 24 million families in the country have two things. They own a home, of which 28 per cent are mortgage-free. And they have the vote. What they lack, however, is information. They have never used the first fact, their transformation into landowners, to make the second fact, their power to vote, effective in their own interest. Homeowners are the power in the democracy, but no one's told them."

It is time for the ordinary homeowner to know that he or she is being cheated into believing that land is scarce, and that the government, with its stipulations that new housebuilding programmes should be carried out on brownfield rather than on greenfield sites, is culpable in this conspiracy of ignorance. Landowners of Britain have had it comfortable for far too long, benefiting through quirks of birth from the great land thefts of British history - the Norman Conquest, Henry VIII's seizure of monastic land, Oliver Cromwell's capture of church and Crown land and the enclosures of common land from the end of the 17th century up to the mid-19th century. Not only have they excluded ramblers from their vast estates, they have charged the rest of us for entering their lavish and ostentatious stately homes.

So why isn't land reform a more urgent matter? Why is the Labour government silent on the issue? One isn't advocating Robert Mugabe-style land grabs, though it would be fascinating to observe how the nation might respond to the simultaneous invasion of country estates by thousands of well-drilled and motivated squatters. Yet something must be done to address this scandal of inequality. With interest rates rising and with property prices at a dangerous and unsustainable height, the second wave of repossessions may not be too far away. If people begin to lose their homes, as they did in the early 1990s, it will not be long before they begin asking why they are forced to pay so much for property; who exactly owns the most valuable resource of this nation, its land; how they came to own it; why these rights of ownership should be subsidised; and what can be done definitively to shift the balance of power.

Jason Cowley is a contributing editor of the New Statesman

The UK's top five landowners
(excluding the Crown Estate, the Ministry of Defence and the Forestry Commission)

Duke of Buccleuch
Acreage: 270,900
Value: £598m
Subsidy Entitlement: £20.4m

Estate of Atholl dukedom
Acreage: 147,000
Value: £200m
Subsidy Entitlement: £11.0m

Duchy of Cornwall
Acreage: 141,000
Value: £480m
Subsidy Entitlement: £10.6m

Duke of NorthumberlandAcreage: 132,000
Value: £463m
Subsidy Entitlement: £9.9m

Duke of Westminster(excl London) Acreage: 129,000
Value: £450m
Subsidy Entitlement: £9.2m

The figures are based on: a) a price of £3,992 for a good arable acre in the UK in the second quarter of 2004; b) a subsidy entitlement of 113 per acre, which a spokesman for the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs considered (August 2004) to be "perfectly reasonable to assign" where an acreage is publicly known. Note, however, that information about actual subsidies is not available.
Research: Kevin Cahill

[sentient being]

Excellent Info synergy. Thanks.

[sentient being]

Resist The Borg - Live Lucid

[synergy777]

http://deadmanmusings.blogspot.com/2009/08/our-military-ruling-classes-part-1.html

Our Military Ruling Classes: Part 1

The Windsor Coat of Arms (battle display). Note that the two crossed swords have behind them numerous Templar crosses. This Demonstrates that the House of Windsor rules over and draws its military strength from the Knights Templar.

As we discussed in previous posts, the Illuminati ideal for society is found in Plato's Republic. The governing classes are the Philosopher Kings; the Military Leadership/National Police; and the Merchant Class.

The Philosopher Kings of the Illuminati trace their lineage back to the Knights Templar, as do the military classes. The Templars were organized as a military religious Order during the Crusades. They were also the National Police in Europe and the Holy Land. Their purpose has always been to enforce the decrees of the ruling class or the "Philosopher Kings".

After the Templars were forced underground, some of them organized as the Masonic Order in Scotland. The Masonic ordinances, signs, symbols and ceremonies are all from the Knights Templar. The three highest degrees are reserved for the Philosopher Kings; the military/national police/ and the merchant class. The lower degrees are reserved for the uninitiated. They exist to unwittingly carry out the agenda of the ruling classes (our modern-day Templars/Illuminati).

Thus the Masons swear allegiance to "Pirates, Rogues and Thieves" (This has reference to the Knights Templar after they were forced underground in Europe, as well as the Templar naval fleet which flew the skull and bones).

In the Masonic initiation, the story of one "Hyrum Abiff", the architect of the original Temple of Solomon, is murdered before the Temple can actually be completed. The initiate swears to assist in its final completion. This has a Biblical reference:

13 ¶ And king Solomon sent and fetched aHiram out of Tyre.

14 He was a widow’s son of the tribe of Naphtali, and his father was a man of Tyre, a worker in brass: and he was filled with awisdom, and understanding, and cunning to work all works in brass. And he came to kingSolomon, and bwrought all his work. ( 1 Kgs. 7: 14)

In reality however, "Hyrum Abiff" is really Jaques De Molay , the last Grand Master of the Knights Templar. Molay was "burned at the stake" by order of Philip the Fair, King of France. The unfinished Temple of Solomon has reference to the unfinished works of the Templars, when they were formally disbanded and forced underground by the Inquisition.

The Knights Templar did in fact excavate the site where Solomon's Temple had once existed, I believe that some of the Masonic signs and handshakes were discovered during this excavation. Unknown to most Masonic initiates however, Solomon built two Temples during his lifetime. One to honor God; and then one to honor Moloch or Set.


"1 But king aSolomon loved many bstrange cwomen, together with the ddaughter of ePharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites;

2 Of the nations concerning which the Lord said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall not go in to them, neither shall they come in unto you: for surely they will aturn away your heart after their gods: Solomon clave unto these in love.

• • •

4 For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his awives turned away his heart after other gods: and his heart was not perfect with the Lord his God, bas was the heart of David his father.

5 For Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Zidonians, and after Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites.

6 And aSolomon did evil in the sight of the Lord, band went not fully after the Lord, as did David his father.

7 Then did Solomon build an high place for aChemosh, the abomination of Moab, in the bhill that is before Jerusalem, and for Molech, the abomination of the children of Ammon." (1 Kgs. 11: 1)


Molech was the Canaanite version of the Egyptian god Set. The god Set was a homosexual god of evil. He was worshipped during ceremonies that involved human sacrifice, cannibalism and homosexual orgies. As the god of destruction, he became the god of the Egyptian military. In ancient Rome, he was worshipped as the god Saturn by the Roman military (often with baptism by blood).

Thus we see that Satan (Set, Saturn, Molech etc.) was worshipped by Solomon and his wives as he grew old and senile. This involved heterosexual sex orgies (Ashteroth), homosexual sex orgies (Baal, Set, Satan, Molech), human sacrifice (Molech) and even cannibalism (Set, Molech). Our modern high-level military leadership appears to have the same values as the ancients. Kay Griggs explains:

Video 1: Our Military Occult Leadership

Video 2: Kay Griggs explains high-level occult military leadership

The Knights Templar, in pursuit of Solomon's Wisdom, also worship two deities. In free-masonry, they refer to a "Supreme Being" at the lower levels. This "Supreme Being" gave unto man the principals of reason. The Masonic use of the symbols of geometry have reference to this "Being of Light" that they believe gave unto man both logic and science.

This Supreme being is in fact Lucifer, the god of the Illuminati Philosopher Kings. According to Illuminati mythos, he is the Promethesius that gave unto man the forbidden fire in defiance of the God Zeus. He is Lucifer, a "son of the morning", the Illuminati God of Wisdom. He is represented by the sign of the Egyptian sun god (Horus). The "All-seeing eye" that sits atop the unfinished pyramid (Temple of Solomon). He is the sworn enemy of God and Jesus Christ that was cast down to this earth.

Unknown to the lower levels of "Freemasonry", Satan is the god of the second highest level of the "free-masons" and the Illuminati military and national police. He is separate from Lucifer and is worshipped as the "Great Destroyer" of mankind. It is to Satan that they make their human sacrifices, practice homosexuality and even cannibalism.

The Illuminati believe that Satan has to be permitted to destroy mankind completely before the earth can be rebuilt as the kingdom of Lucifer (see Plato's Republic). Thus the greatest Illuminati symbol is the Phoenix rising from the ashes of our modern civilization.

[sentient being]

Let Individuality Rule Forever.

[sentient being]

Live Lucid.

[dolores1]

Sorry,

She, Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor, is still answerable to the Vatican! Check out the UN. WHO, Canada, USA and Switzerland, follow the money.

[sentient being]

Sorry,

She, Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor, is still answerable to the Vatican! Check out the UN. WHO, Canada, USA and Switzerland, follow the money.


Indeed and I see how they are are all connected to the Cesare Borgia/Vatican/Papacy incest line in this vid: http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=78502

[kimball13]

Are those land holding connected to The Crown, did she gain the land with funds from the royal tresurie, must have where else would she have recieved the money or leverage, or did she wash dishes and save up,,,,,,,,,,,i wonder what would happen if there was someone that is a bit higher up on the sucsecion list.

[mind1universe]

http://deadmanmusings.blogspot.com/2009/08/our-military-ruling-classes-part-1.html

Our Military Ruling Classes: Part 1

The Windsor Coat of Arms (battle display). Note that the two crossed swords have behind them numerous Templar crosses. This Demonstrates that the House of Windsor rules over and draws its military strength from the Knights Templar.

As we discussed in previous posts, the Illuminati ideal for society is found in Plato's Republic. The governing classes are the Philosopher Kings; the Military Leadership/National Police; and the Merchant Class.

The Philosopher Kings of the Illuminati trace their lineage back to the Knights Templar, as do the military classes. The Templars were organized as a military religious Order during the Crusades. They were also the National Police in Europe and the Holy Land. Their purpose has always been to enforce the decrees of the ruling class or the "Philosopher Kings".

After the Templars were forced underground, some of them organized as the Masonic Order in Scotland. The Masonic ordinances, signs, symbols and ceremonies are all from the Knights Templar. The three highest degrees are reserved for the Philosopher Kings; the military/national police/ and the merchant class. The lower degrees are reserved for the uninitiated. They exist to unwittingly carry out the agenda of the ruling classes (our modern-day Templars/Illuminati).

Thus the Masons swear allegiance to "Pirates, Rogues and Thieves" (This has reference to the Knights Templar after they were forced underground in Europe, as well as the Templar naval fleet which flew the skull and bones).

In the Masonic initiation, the story of one "Hyrum Abiff", the architect of the original Temple of Solomon, is murdered before the Temple can actually be completed. The initiate swears to assist in its final completion. This has a Biblical reference:

13 ¶ And king Solomon sent and fetched aHiram out of Tyre.

14 He was a widow’s son of the tribe of Naphtali, and his father was a man of Tyre, a worker in brass: and he was filled with awisdom, and understanding, and cunning to work all works in brass. And he came to kingSolomon, and bwrought all his work. ( 1 Kgs. 7: 14)

In reality however, "Hyrum Abiff" is really Jaques De Molay , the last Grand Master of the Knights Templar. Molay was "burned at the stake" by order of Philip the Fair, King of France. The unfinished Temple of Solomon has reference to the unfinished works of the Templars, when they were formally disbanded and forced underground by the Inquisition.

The Knights Templar did in fact excavate the site where Solomon's Temple had once existed, I believe that some of the Masonic signs and handshakes were discovered during this excavation. Unknown to most Masonic initiates however, Solomon built two Temples during his lifetime. One to honor God; and then one to honor Moloch or Set.


"1 But king aSolomon loved many bstrange cwomen, together with the ddaughter of ePharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites;

2 Of the nations concerning which the Lord said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall not go in to them, neither shall they come in unto you: for surely they will aturn away your heart after their gods: Solomon clave unto these in love.

• • •

4 For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his awives turned away his heart after other gods: and his heart was not perfect with the Lord his God, bas was the heart of David his father.

5 For Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Zidonians, and after Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites.

6 And aSolomon did evil in the sight of the Lord, band went not fully after the Lord, as did David his father.

7 Then did Solomon build an high place for aChemosh, the abomination of Moab, in the bhill that is before Jerusalem, and for Molech, the abomination of the children of Ammon." (1 Kgs. 11: 1)


Molech was the Canaanite version of the Egyptian god Set. The god Set was a homosexual god of evil. He was worshipped during ceremonies that involved human sacrifice, cannibalism and homosexual orgies. As the god of destruction, he became the god of the Egyptian military. In ancient Rome, he was worshipped as the god Saturn by the Roman military (often with baptism by blood).

Thus we see that Satan (Set, Saturn, Molech etc.) was worshipped by Solomon and his wives as he grew old and senile. This involved heterosexual sex orgies (Ashteroth), homosexual sex orgies (Baal, Set, Satan, Molech), human sacrifice (Molech) and even cannibalism (Set, Molech). Our modern high-level military leadership appears to have the same values as the ancients. Kay Griggs explains:

Video 1: Our Military Occult Leadership

Video 2: Kay Griggs explains high-level occult military leadership

The Knights Templar, in pursuit of Solomon's Wisdom, also worship two deities. In free-masonry, they refer to a "Supreme Being" at the lower levels. This "Supreme Being" gave unto man the principals of reason. The Masonic use of the symbols of geometry have reference to this "Being of Light" that they believe gave unto man both logic and science.

This Supreme being is in fact Lucifer, the god of the Illuminati Philosopher Kings. According to Illuminati mythos, he is the Promethesius that gave unto man the forbidden fire in defiance of the God Zeus. He is Lucifer, a "son of the morning", the Illuminati God of Wisdom. He is represented by the sign of the Egyptian sun god (Horus). The "All-seeing eye" that sits atop the unfinished pyramid (Temple of Solomon). He is the sworn enemy of God and Jesus Christ that was cast down to this earth.

Unknown to the lower levels of "Freemasonry", Satan is the god of the second highest level of the "free-masons" and the Illuminati military and national police. He is separate from Lucifer and is worshipped as the "Great Destroyer" of mankind. It is to Satan that they make their human sacrifices, practice homosexuality and even cannibalism.

The Illuminati believe that Satan has to be permitted to destroy mankind completely before the earth can be rebuilt as the kingdom of Lucifer (see Plato's Republic). Thus the greatest Illuminati symbol is the Phoenix rising from the ashes of our modern civilization.
Lucifer will not destroy earth.

Nether will the Illuminati.


It was never the plan. Its to complicated to explain here.


But trust me lucifer will not destroy humanity.

[sentient being]

Are those land holding connected to The Crown, did she gain the land with funds from the royal tresurie, must have where else would she have recieved the money or leverage, or did she wash dishes and save up,,,,,,,,,,,i wonder what would happen if there was someone that is a bit higher up on the sucsecion list.


For starters the land has been collected since long time ago. Courtesy of the pillaging, rape and invasions of many countries from again, a long time ago. This didn't happen overnight. Remember when so called "Great Britain" was colonising the planet? And even before that.

Then the ruse of "independence". No, they never gave anyone "independence". They and their papal incest bloodlines just hid their operations/control/theivery to covert a covert levl.

[rapunzel]

http://deadmanmusings.blogspot.com/2009/08/our-military-ruling-classes-part-1.html

synergy 777, why don’t you check the facts in this blog before you post it. How can anyone believe it when it is full of mistakes?

The Windsor Coat of Arms (battle display). Note that the two crossed swords have behind them numerous Templar crosses. This Demonstrates that the House of Windsor rules over and draws its military strength from the Knights Templar.

This is wrong. The coat of arms refers to the family with the surname Windsor. It has nothing to do with the Royals of the House of Windsor.

The Philosopher Kings of the Illuminati trace their lineage back to the Knights Templar, as do the military classes. The Templars were organized as a military religious Order during the Crusades. They were also the National Police in Europe and the Holy Land. Their purpose has always been to enforce the decrees of the ruling class or the "Philosopher Kings".

Where is the historical evidence that the Templars were the National Police force in Europe? I have studied medieval history quite deeply and I have never come across this fact.

The Knights Templar did in fact excavate the site where Solomon's Temple had once existed, I believe that some of the Masonic signs and handshakes were discovered during this excavation. Unknown to most Masonic initiates however, Solomon built two Temples during his lifetime. One to honor God; and then one to honor Moloch or Set.

Where is the historical and archaeological evidence for the Temple to Moloch? A high place is not a Temple. Come to think of it where is the evidence for the Temple to Yahweh!

Molech was the Canaanite version of the Egyptian god Set. The god Set was a homosexual god of evil. He was worshipped during ceremonies that involved human sacrifice, cannibalism and homosexual orgies. As the god of destruction, he became the god of the Egyptian military. In ancient Rome, he was worshipped as the god Saturn by the Roman military (often with baptism by blood).

Thus we see that Satan (Set, Saturn, Molech etc.) was worshipped by Solomon and his wives as he grew old and senile. This involved heterosexual sex orgies (Ashteroth), homosexual sex orgies (Baal, Set, Satan, Molech), human sacrifice (Molech) and even cannibalism (Set, Molech). Our modern high-level military leadership appears to have the same values as the ancients. Kay Griggs explains:

No trace has been found of a Canaanite god called Moloch and Set, although with one story involving homosexuality was not a god of evil, he was a god of the desert and of chaos. Nor were human sacrifice, cannibalism or homosexual religious rites practiced in Egypt during dynastic times. The ancient Egyptian military had many gods as each division was named after a god and on of the divisions was named after Set but he wasn’t the god of the military per se.

Set was not Satan nor was he a model for Satan; that came from the Zoroastrian religion the Jews encountered in Babylon. The Jewish Satan was not an evil being rather he was a servant of Yahweh. Nor was Set the equivalent of the Roman Saturn.

There are so many errors here that the writer of this link obviously has no concern for the truth and so this entire post can be regarded.

[sentient being]

OK. Just pay attention to my article:D

[sentient being]

Resist The Borg Agenda

[sentient being]

Up on a simply majestic sunny day. So many birds in the trees, sounds like a symphony. I didn't see any butterflies a while back. So I decided to experiment. Lo and behold. Many butterflies flying through now. Wow what a treat to be alive. And this is just a smidgen of the overabundant possibilities for us to create. Enjoy.

[white horse]

It comes down to a question of force. If somebody lays claim to a piece of land, and nobody else does, then a common law court will recognise their claim to prevent fighting over it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYeFcSq7Mxg&feature=related

[white horse]

How to determine royal wealth...?


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/royal-special-how-rich-is-the-queen-and-what-does-she-really-own-606171.html

Royal Special: How rich is the Queen, and what does she really own?

By Robert Verkaik and Arifa Akbar

Friday, 31 May 2002

An analysis of the Queen's wealth shows that she holds assets worth £17bn in trust for the nation.

But access to these treasures is restricted by hundreds of years of obfuscation over what the Queen owns as sovereign and what belongs to her as Elizabeth Windsor.

Which paintings and other works of art are shown to the public is still decided solely by the Palace and the trustees of the Royal Collection.

Put simply, confusion over what the Queen owns and how much she is really worth helps the Palace to protect her wealth and prevent the public having rights of access to it.

But our analysis of the royal fortune reveals there is very little she can call her own.

...

While her private income is derived from a mixture of a portfolio of stocks and shares invested by the Bank of England Nominees and the drawings from the ancient estate of the Duchy of Lancaster, her public income is provided by the Government under the terms of the Civil List.

The Palace maintains that these two sources of income should be treated separately.

But the Queen's personal wealth is a murky area that crosses the boundaries of her private and public lives. Recent efforts by MPs and the National Audit Office to shine a light on the relationship between the flow of cash involving Parliament and the Queen has exposed a complex area of Palace accounting and royal double speak.

...

Other European royal families how they compare

BELGIUM

Speculation last year about the size of its fortune forced the family to issue an unusual clarification. The official figure of £7.8m, which excludes art, a villa in France and land, is far below previous estimates. The magazine EuroBusiness claimed it was £1.4bn.

DENMARK

An annual £4.6m goes to Queen Margrethe to maintain her family. EuroBusiness estimates a relatively modest fortune of £10.2m in an investment fund, but this is disputed by the Palace, which says it is too high.

LIECHTENSTEIN

The family whose lands once spread throughout the Holy Roman Empire still has estates in Austria. Most of its estimated £3.1bn fortune derives from an art collection and the family-owned finance company, LGT Group.

LUXEMBOURG

Ranked Europe's second richest in a 1999 survey by EuroBusiness. Fortune estimated at £2.9bn. Much of the wealth is in land and investments.

MONACO

Prince Rainier has a sizeable tax exempt fortune. His family owns 25 per cent of Monaco and 69 per cent of SBM ­ the company that owns the Monte Carlo casino ­ which makes annual profits of £18.4m. Art work includes Rubens and Goya.



THE NETHERLANDS

The family is thought once to have owned as much as 25 per cent of the Royal Dutch/ Shell Group. Art, investments and landholdings now make up their £2bn portfolio. The state provides three palaces.

NORWAY

King Harald V inherited a substantial fortune, much of it property in Britain, from his father, Olav V, who was the grandson of King Edward VII. Private wealth is estimated at £88m.

SPAIN

Little is known of the Bourbon family wealth. Everything from the royal yacht to family jewels is state-owned. They are thought to be among Europe's least-rich royals.

SWEDEN

King Carl Gustaf has 10 palaces but they are all state-owned. He pays taxes at the same rate as other Swedes. The Swedish court says he has an estimated fortune of £14m.

[sentient being]

How to determine royal wealth...?


Love this part: "But our analysis of the royal fortune reveals there is very little she can call her own"


Oh how they would love to have us swallow yet another lie:rolleyes:

[sentient being]

Ah, yet another sweeeeeet, sunny day. Cleansing going very well, now let the magnificent "sweet sentience" countdown begin!

5

[white horse]

Love this part: "But our analysis of the royal fortune reveals there is very little she can call her own"


Oh how they would love to have us swallow yet another lie:rolleyes:

"the Queen's personal wealth is a murky area"

[sentient being]

Up.

[kimball13]

For starters the land has been collected since long time ago. Courtesy of the pillaging, rape and invasions of many countries from again, a long time ago. This didn't happen overnight. Remember when so called "Great Britain" was colonising the planet? And even before that.

Then the ruse of "independence". No, they never gave anyone "independence". They and their papal incest bloodlines just hid their operations/control/theivery to covert a covert levl.


Good then this means if her claim to the crown is fruadulent then that meens if/when/is found all of that would be tranferde into that persons name along with all other holding and such aquired by the Crown from which all the wealth was accumulated by,,,,,,,,inotherwords the house she built is on a foundation and land not hers, and that house was built by the lands/crowns money.

UhOh:eek:;)that would mean an imediate transfer of wealth and power inot someones hands that may choose to then make reparations and return much of what was wrongfully taken of holdings and such found in the coffers,,,,,,imagine all of those land rights and such that may be returned to the tribal elders and the people that live in the richest countries in the world as far as production goes,,,,,,which means the money and such goes to the people doing the work,,,,,,,,,,,,imagine instead of the continuation of cultures being destroyed someoen comes along and takes it all and begins to rebuild the differnt ways of life in the natural cultures of the people that live there.

instead of going into much detail here it is all legit and the info is public as well as on another thread in this forum and it is the creation of that thread that lead to who was is responsible for some things and the can of worms that it opend up included the Queen dirrectly, and even though her people and associate were in the know includeing the Prince of Monaco no reparations or agreaments were made so this constitutes Guilt of Conciesnes as well as coverup/conspiracy and a few other things,,,,,,,so it is through there own admision as well as omission that prove there guilt and knowledge,,,,,,,,,,a few years ago they could have written it off as a mistake, an oh we were ignorant and such but it is beyond that now and they have shown there guilt and inhumanitys,,,,,,,,,,even after comapsion and a way out of embarasment was offerd,,,,,,,,,,,,,,so i realy did do it in a diplomantic way, as well as honorable,,,,,,,,i did better than any of them could given my resorces and what ive been up against,,,,,,,,,,after all fighting that much power/money/influence can be taxing,,,,,,,and i would say the motive is obviose and goes beyond and religios crap and is pure greed on there part,,,,,,,,,,im going to post elsewhere on a topic similar so im going to just do that instead of typing my arse of here and there,,,,,,i realy would like to do some research, funny though getting it out leads to more research so its all good,,,,,,,,,,,,and for the record i live in monsanto housing, go figure the company that owns my apartment is monsanto,,,,there is allot more to the story including walefeckle corp,,,,,,,,oh ya and allot of this revolves around the Marines corps for some reason and an army colonel that went to the UK for a time,,,,,,,,,i wonder if the knew his real name,,,,,,,oh well its probley known by some including his prior enemys that may have had a turn of heart when the big picture is looked at,,,,,,,,,,,,oh this is real deap includeing very covert black ops types, spys, etc, not just a Queen so i have realy stood my own as well as any could have including Jason Bourne/James Bond/Rambo/ i would say King Leonidas from sparta but he made a mistake i learned from,,,,,,,,but then i knew of his tactics and more when i could hardly walk,,,,,,but then Who am I but none other than the Kings spoken of that would return so would it not be natural for me to understand the higher art forms of WAR almost if not of angelic class,,,,,,,so me living in poverty for almost 40 years being denied rights others have for no reason, being given hindarances not of my making nor responsobility to correct or even have to spend time on, and if i do then some malpractice is in order which is another part of the story,,,,,,,,,oh ya they even did some very bad things to me medicaly,,,,,,,,,,,,,but why am i still alive well like i said why would i not know the angelic form of warfare,,,,,,and now you know exatly What Excalibur is,the art of angelic war is to weild this sword and this is why only few in the history can wield it. You see everytime they try to reproduce it they just destroy and cause more harm, they cannot duplicate it they can only make a counterfeit at very best.

so i know it seems im all over the board but hay i dont have a think tank or secratary, no warroom, or advisors,,,,,,,,,,,so im left with having to hope others have enough abstract reasoning to be able to connect the dots without me spelling everyone out,,,,,thats part of what high level of abstact reasoning is good for is seeing how things in the big picture connect.

So instead of rewarding a gifted child they used and abused him in an ivisible cage that only he could see,,,,,,,,,you see in my case i saw it as a boy what was happening and being done, i could not figrue out why though, was it because of my gifts,,,,but it had to be more than that,,,,,,,,,there are otherways of controling a person,,,,,,,i knew it was fear,,,,,,,,i wonderd why adults would fear a 6 year old child,,,,,,,,,so after teh towers fell as well as a build up of personal isues and deaths in the family over a 4 year period i had to buckle down and get to a place to start research and uncovering what was going on personaly and how it interconnected to the fall of the Towers, then after 7 years i started posting in this forum back around aug-2008 shortly after an intense lightning storm where i live which was a sign i was waiting for and i was near the end of my rope and my faith wwas wavering greatly and i was just going to go get zomby pills and check out and go numb,,,,,the 8,000 bolts of lightning hit setting norther california ablaze, the sky went black for a weak, it literaly looked like hell on earth, yet we all just turned out headlights on, so i knew it was true because my prayer was on just this very subject which includes the pretenderQueen of england, i sent that pretenderprince michael lafosse on the run that was his choice to do that not mine i would have preferd his assistance after all, if they pretended that long they know afew things i may find usefull as wll as a list of all they screwed over so i could make somekinda reparation even though i did not do it and had no part in it, i still think because it was done throught the Crown i have a responsobility to do the best i can to right what was done wrong,,,,,,,,,,,,,,and if i can make it as far as i have and still know right from wrong and hold of untold attacks from some of the very best in the world at destroying others in many ways,,,,and this without owning a gun or severly physicaly harming another,,,,,,,,,,,,after all makes sense to me, a king of my type would be able to wage war against any enemy and at least hold them in check just as in 300 the movie,,,,,,,,but im more than Spartan, if you only knew who was who and who has traveld this world righting wrong with the blade of a sword, no matter what form that sword takes he is always the best and only one that can,,,,,,and sometimes the sword is the people, yes even in war, but as any king does his sword is always sharp and clean ready for battle and well taken care of and never sacraficed for any reason because without the sword there can be no victory,,,,,,,,,,ive subdued many words out of fear, out of judjment, out of others missuseing, ive held much back in many ways only because of others ingnorance and there comfort in the stagnant pools they fester in,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,an example of what i meen it a light switch,,,,,,,,most say i dont need to know how it works only that it works, ok thats good but then most learned to save money and resorces to conserve power but that takes people that understand the connection between that switch-powerline-powerplant-natural resorces-pocket book in the pocket of the hand turning on the light switch,,,,,,,,then you need someone that can look at it and understand it as a whole to explane why your pocket book is empty then find the cause;)

this is why im not angry at God (to much) or humanity,,,,,,,,i know it had to happen this way for us as mankind to find solutions and come closer to God and who better to send to do it and how else could it have happend but i guess because it was written about by many peoples and is happening in just about verbatum fashion why have many just become almost just waiting for a magic word to be said,,,think about it i cant govern anyones free will i can only protect it maybe that is why im so inpoverished and used but there comes a time of reckoning for missusing it a gift to protect a God given free will,,,,,,,,,,so that gift goes from creative to warlike to protect the good creations, and this is wheat and chaff type stuff that does not take kindly to colateral damage and sacraficing the very lives trying to be saved.

So in my assesment God wanted to give some an oppurtunity by putting a king in a position for them to steal his crown before he is even born and the way they treated him was disgusting thus negating any claim to being civilized as they claim amongst themselves,,,,,,,,,,,call it Payback for all the missuse of God's laws and such,,,,,God decided to use there own laws against them while still keeping his. and this is also a reason why the vatican omited certain books and info pertaining to angelic orders and such due to the secrets and mysteries some may unlock if looked at and noteicing how one culture adds more detail to certain prophecys and such or vets certain things that would disempower certain power stuctures.


So i wonder if it would be like a b-rated movie were the burger eating guy is a long lost heir, Leanidas of sparta, but actualy there is a sci-fi movei that explanes this portion of it all and its called Chronicles of Ridick that is my fealing exatly several years ago and why i wanted nothing from that ElisabethII,,,,,,,imagine figureing out a good use for necranomicans,even the plot is similar, just substatute furion for pendragon but thats sci-fi and this is reality.

part of the difficulty is i have to wage a type of war and at the same time focus on higher spiritual thought,,,,,,,i would rather be focusing on spiritual concepts and such,,,but necesity calls for me to focus more on this,,,,,the times have made it very clear i would not come back until neaded and the way of my coming forward is even unknown to myself, all i know is it is tied to that crown and a very long historical drama that has touched every people on the planet and i have found my self in the middle, just most considerd a bit above average andmaybe a genous in some areas with spiritual understanding that he was never taught by any human which caused a bit of fear because i was beyond even the elders to a point that it takes them time to find it true yet it always is, yet even in a repressed state it took them 1,860 on me constantly to hinder me this much and they know i ahve only used my weaknesses to defend myself they have seen my strengths,,,,,,they also know ive only attacke there strengths,,,,,,,and well all they got left are there week so worried na just irratated i am:cool:and uncomfortable.

i am a two way street if a lable must be put,,,,,,think of an empath that can send,,,,,,,now extend that into other gifts, retrokinesis, remote influence, telekinesis, law of atraction and such,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,well in war mode it takes someone of understanding and or incence or my prey to feal comfortable in my presence so in that mode if you did come with me then most likely your the enemy i seak,,,,,,,,,,,,,,thing is only i know when this happens if i want it that way,,,,,,,,this is part of why the fear me,,,,,,,,in this way i can just about go into anyplace and even be welcomed and be seated somehow right next to or across from one of my enemys(there choice not mine) so ya law of atraction for me is who threatens my people and kingdom, not of my choosing or even wanting but God's choice and my obediance, my choice was to be what i am or be one of them,,,,,im not sure but i dont think that couldve happend no matter what,,,,scares me to think of how close to the stories this all is,,,,,,,,,you know i had to come to grips with allot of what i ahve to share is borderline blasemy for some unless they realy read and study,,,,,,,so even now when conditioning from false teachings twinge comes up i check it out after the fact, the reason is if my heart is wrong i want to know,,,,,,,,,but my info is right especialy about me,,,,,,and why the vatican tried to erase the name Jehoel one of the 7 archangels, the one diffent than the others, and also how i knew the Rider on the white horse known as Faithfull and True is not Jesus, he is the leader of God's army, now you know why King of Kings, an army of Kings,,,,,,,,,,,so,,,,,,,,this is also why i knew michael is not the Rider, and also is not the head, michael is a head of the army but not the one that Carries the Sword, the one that is the Voice of God. so unforutuantly it makes sense to many before me and they spoke about it,,,,,,,,,,just as its written none would not know where i came from or my heritage and i would not speak of myself(util others do)if you read it all the way through,,,,,,,,,so i understand what the mayans speak of about the heart and always have.

I cant tell you how many times ive sat and watched some make claims and suggest who they want to be as if they are that person, and i would have a very fast thought of wow there trying to convince me that they are me or that they are Christ, i would know if anyone would whom christ is, but to be polite i would just try to change the subject,,,,,,,,,,,little did they know the one they were trying to conterfeit was sitting right there,,,,,,,,,,oops:eek: they never told there info gathers and people trying to set up fronts to discredit me with a double of sorts who i was and if they did know some of them were just plain arrogant or may have been testing how the memorie reprssion was holding,,,,doesnt matte to me now, just doing what i have to is what matters now,,,,,i wll have time later to enjoy life, but then ive known that for over 30 years now,,,,,its a hard road for some of us, so i just know that it had to be someone so imagine as i uncoverd who this person is and it was myself in every way written and prophecied about coming down to the meanings of every name ive carried, only three one birth, two lakota, oh ya and a nickname,,,,,,so i have to accept it as i would if it was someone i didnt think was my picture of me, talk about a scewy way of having to look at things sometimes,,,,

oh and it was a member by marriage of the Churchill family that caused a great deal of slander and such, as well as a man named ward churchill that by his association with the brother of a close associate of mine in the Lakota tribe that discredited me, as well as the name boyd of which i hoped to never have to type,,,,,,,,look up daniel boyd and the SC terrorist cell and his connections to al-queda and cia from the russian afgan war.

then there is LA/Sheriff/Marine corps classified secrets and such, etc.
or the highest ranking marine corps reserve officer i met over 10 years ago that was part of an extensive series of tests having to do with phycological evaluations and such which shocked them, the way they described me was like a combo of Batman and CAptain america. its the captain americal side that makes me abit tempermental.

funny ha ha ha,,,,,,,how many ways do i have to catch ya,,,,,,,now i dont know much about Monsanto but ive heard the name,,,,,,,,,my question is are they helping or harming, im talking now,,,,,,,nowonder they want to keep me hear in monsanto housing:eek:

[kimball13]

Up on a simply majestic sunny day. So many birds in the trees, sounds like a symphony. I didn't see any butterflies a while back. So I decided to experiment. Lo and behold. Many butterflies flying through now. Wow what a treat to be alive. And this is just a smidgen of the overabundant possibilities for us to create. Enjoy.


yep way cool,,,,,,,,,i noticed similar things i wonder if we both did the same thing,,,,

[kimball13]

0

[kimball13]

Love this part: "But our analysis of the royal fortune reveals there is very little she can call her own"


Oh how they would love to have us swallow yet another lie:rolleyes:



thats because its not hers,,,,,,shes just a fraugulent pretender queen.
it belongs to the rightfull heir to the crown of England.;)

[electron2012]

no one really owns anything except the body they were born into this world with.......:confused:

royalty own NOTHING in reality, they just did a lot of ''rape & pillage'' back in the day & LAID CLAIM to all they're eyes rested on.

how dare the queen presume she actually owns this land, its not hers or her family's, we ALL just reside here on this earth, we do not ''own'' a thing, add to that the fact that in order to ''own'' something you've probably paid for it out of money which has no value anyway....

so land is traded upon a monetary system created by these monsters, which is worthless.:rolleyes: IMO


THE EARTH BELONGS TO THE EARTH....... NO ONE ELSE!! :mad:



:)SK


My view too... just as silly as it is to us that there's a company selling land on the moon, it's just as nonsensical that we have turned mother earth into currency. Money is an illusion, it's a lie - and therefore is the ownership of such land.

[bobbydiva]

A lot of what's hers really seems to be the Rothschild's and the city if london's

[kimball13]

Quote:
Originally Posted by squeakamuffin http://www.davidicke.com/forum/images/buttons_green/viewpost.gif (http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1129815#post1129815)
Its obvious that the Queen has purchased all that land to try to have some sort of influence on a global level without resorting to politics.

Ummm ... did you actually, seriously, intentionally write "purchase"???


Quote:
Before the year 1066 the people of England held Allodial title to their land.
Not even the king could take the land for not paying a tithe. William the Conquer came in 1066
and stole the Kings Title and took the land of the people.

source (http://www.natural-person.ca/pdf/Beginning_of_the_Lie.PDF)

sorry about my technical ignorace i tried to figure out how to get the whole post so i just cut and pasted it.


thank you for stateing part of how my family did things, even though a monarchy the kings still did not govern the people to the extent of taking there land for being short or not in some petty agreement,,,,,,it was more help out if you can when we come around and if not just at least dont be tratorouse to your own people,,,,,,,,,,,,,,andit was a germanic pope that orchastrated all of that,,,,,,funny that was the last germanic pope until now and this one is a nazi youth as well as the office he held before pope was originaly known as the office of inquisition,,,,,,,,,so history repeats itself in a way, just this time my family is taking it back, not like 1500 years ago or 1,000 or 700 ya that group has reapetadly done this,,,,,,,that elizabeth and crew are vatican lackys,,,,,,,,,,,,,we protected the people for 500 years against rome, and then almost another 500 after that we were a buffer, thank you for a bit of history.

[kimball13]

thats because its not hers,,,,,,shes just a fraugulent pretender queen.
it belongs to the rightfull heir to the crown of England.;)


oh ya im talking in the old ways just as the story's of the fisher kings and there connection to the land,,,,,this is the only reason for the whole royal thing but the vatican was weird and did not understand things that even kings didnt understand completely but you can find it in mythologie so a true King could never own the land outright but he tries his best to keep others from owning it and missuseing it,,,,,,,,,,,instead of going into case points if you do maybe 30 mins of research you will see this is how every indigeonouse culture runs itself in harmony with the land even as it grows and makes roman roads(maybe not bad but still roman)so realy that woman is a roman lacky from the actions of her own and her predasesors, as for the young men Dianas boys it is her that is of true Duches blood and this is why those boys are a bit diffent than there father, but they still arenot the rightfull heirs according to natural and divine laws, it wasnt until the vatican pope thought themselves above God's law were these laws violated,,,,,,,,,,but they still are Dukes so to speak and have a place of responsobilty even more than there Grandmother tried to fake but not as Kings or princes, and i mean no disrespect to them it is more out of respect that i say this about it, and it is why i took awhile and untill the shite hit the fan because i could not even think of it unless i knew i had the right and proof that was provided by those trying to steal it again,,,,,,,,,otherwise i would have been ignorant of my inheritance or what ever its called.

this realy sickens me, realy it does,,,,,heck ive been happy on $15. a day as long as my bills are paid and such i have no worrys,,,,i wonder what her alarm clock costs before she even starts her day, so her way of conducting herself is way out of line as to where mine is apropriate,,,,especialy the hardships ive endured and still do and then all of this,,,,,,,,,,evrey day i have to deal with some fraudjulent bank charge of other clerical error or such and when you have a $15 a day budget it can get a bit overwelaming as well as doing what ive deen doing in between sorting out the banks investigations and such for them, and then well its a bit out of wack and this is why, there is a pretender in the palace, and the real king is still doinghis duty even without his resorces other than his faith and what hes been blessed with scrapeing together:cool:and im just about over my anger completely and over the years i know what happens then, :confused:, hint it has to do with fisherking/merovingian/pendragon/yankton/apache type mojo, or aka faith.

[white horse]

a true King could never own the land outright but he tries his best to keep others from owning it and missuseing it,,,,,,,,,,,

This is very much in the Celtic/Anglo-Saxon tradition - the King was the guardian of the land and the people - he was a place holder, he was NOT divine!

This all changed with the Norman Conquest (even before really... but finally put an end with the Norman/Roman conquest).

[sentient being]

Up.

[sentient being]

Up.

[kimball13]

This is very much in the Celtic/Anglo-Saxon tradition - the King was the guardian of the land and the people - he was a place holder, he was NOT divine!

This all changed with the Norman Conquest (even before really... but finally put an end with the Norman/Roman conquest).


funny thing about Divinity it does not require station or wealth, nor persuasion or manipulation, no coersion or twisting of truth,,,,,,,,only a desire to uphold truth and to do so ya better be devine because if your not you will become a tyrant and shamefull,,,,,,,,so in actuality a King that truly is a gaudian of a land a peoples then i pray he is of devine nature,,,,,,,,,so, techniquely kings are not automaticly devine but then so to is the peasant not devine, or the tyrant, the decision of devinity realy is made at a crossroads and not other can claim a portion of an idividuals devine nature only the person recieving it usualy for turning down something of great desire and or hunger,,,,,so to define what is not devine and what is,,,,,,,can and ist touchy.

But maybe when people stopped holding there kings responsible to become devine in there leadership is when they stopped being devine and now youve got what sitting on those thrones and wearing crowns more as trophys than responsobility's.

[sentient being]

Up

[sentient being]

Up.

[moon monkey]

She may be the largest landowner on earth but we all know the truth.

The bitch stole it all from BOB JONES !
:cool:

[sentient being]

Bump

[sentient being]

up

[angelthecat]

thats because its not hers,,,,,,shes just a fraugulent pretender queen.
it belongs to the rightfull heir to the crown of England.;)

This is not quite true what is really happening is that she has claimed your land as her own, since you registered it to a commercial government which is in debt to her and the other bankers (money kings). Try to remember that no-one makes land anymore so how can her share grow without causing loss to someone else?

[velma]

The Queen's Coat of Arms is the Lion Of Judah and the motto 'Dieu et mon droit' means 'God and my right' refering to the Divine birthright of Kingship given to Judah by his father Jacob/Israel. Only a Monarch from the bloodline of David can hold the sceptre and sit on the Throne. Richard the Lionheart adopted the 'Lion of Judah' heraldry for the Plantagenets who were descended from the "infernal bloodline of the House of Anjou." The Scots use the Lion Rampant and the Irish, the Harp of David. The Merovingians and House of Anjou came from the Aristocracy of Jerusalem, expelled by Titus, and they established all the European Monarchies who siphoned the wealth of the people to go on Crusades and reclaim Jerusalem.


http://itn.co.uk/story946c29af4ad6f2161aa790f89e644d59.jpg

[paolo]

The Queen's Coat of Arms is the Lion Of Judah and the motto 'Dieu et mon droit' means 'God and my right' refering to the Divine birthright of Kingship given to Judah by his father Jacob/Israel. Only a Monarch from the bloodline of David can hold the sceptre and sit on the Throne. Richard the Lionheart adopted the 'Lion of Judah' heraldry for the Plantagenets who were descended from the "infernal bloodline of the House of Anjou." The Scots use the Lion Rampant and the Irish, the Harp of David. The Merovingians and House of Anjou came from the Aristocracy of Jerusalem, expelled by Titus, and they established all the European Monarchies who siphoned the wealth of the people to go on Crusades and reclaim Jerusalem.


http://itn.co.uk/story946c29af4ad6f2161aa790f89e644d59.jpg
Still wonder whether or not William and Harry got the foreskin chop, or did it stop with the Charles generation?
Perhaps that should be another thread of enquiry...

[farabovetheclouds]

And also there are people who tells that the Rothschilds work for the Queen as her vizier, that would things MUCH more interesting, although I could never confirm.

[camreeno]

Don't you mean "largest bitch on earth"?

[sentient being]

Don't you mean "largest bitch on earth"?



That too, if not most of all.:D

[sofa king]

um ,sorry but the Queen does not "own" all of this land.

any of the former colonies that are now autonomous countires (Australia, Canada, South Africa et al) own themselves. Yes they still refer to it as "crown land" but that is just hoo haw from the old days.

When one buys land from "the crown" in Canada, the money goes back to the federal government of Canada, not Elizabeth II, Reg.

Take Canada and Australia out of the totals and the Queen does not own anywhere near 1/6 of the planet.

Unless of course people can show where Elizabeth was cut any checks/cheques from land sales in Canada or Australia.

[sentient being]

um ,sorry but the Queen does not "own" all of this land.

any of the former colonies that are now autonomous countires (Australia, Canada, South Africa et al) own themselves. Yes they still refer to it as "crown land" but that is just hoo haw from the old days.

When one buys land from "the crown" in Canada, the money goes back to the federal government of Canada, not Elizabeth II, Reg.

Take Canada and Australia out of the totals and the Queen does not own anywhere near 1/6 of the planet.

Unless of course people can show where Elizabeth was cut any checks/cheques from land sales in Canada or Australia.




Who do you think the crown is? Ahhhhh Canada. The land full of "pucks":rolleyes:

[sofa king]

Who do you think the crown is? Ahhhhh Canada. The land full of "pucks":rolleyes:



the "crown" in countries like Canada and Australia is the Federal government, not Elizabeth.

[mind1universe]

don't you mean "largest bitch on earth"?

lol

[dreamweaver]

"Get orf one's land!"

http://images.onesite.com/my.telegraph.co.uk/user/lord_melchett/20080501132206.jpg

[sentient being]

synergy 777, why don’t you check the facts in this blog before you post it. How can anyone believe it when it is full of mistakes?



This is wrong. The coat of arms refers to the family with the surname Windsor. It has nothing to do with the Royals of the House of Windsor.



Where is the historical evidence that the Templars were the National Police force in Europe? I have studied medieval history quite deeply and I have never come across this fact.



Where is the historical and archaeological evidence for the Temple to Moloch? A high place is not a Temple. Come to think of it where is the evidence for the Temple to Yahweh!



No trace has been found of a Canaanite god called Moloch and Set, although with one story involving homosexuality was not a god of evil, he was a god of the desert and of chaos. Nor were human sacrifice, cannibalism or homosexual religious rites practiced in Egypt during dynastic times. The ancient Egyptian military had many gods as each division was named after a god and on of the divisions was named after Set but he wasn’t the god of the military per se.

Set was not Satan nor was he a model for Satan; that came from the Zoroastrian religion the Jews encountered in Babylon. The Jewish Satan was not an evil being rather he was a servant of Yahweh. Nor was Set the equivalent of the Roman Saturn.

There are so many errors here that the writer of this link obviously has no concern for the truth and so this entire post can be regarded.




Thanks. Great Input.

[aldrin]

"Get orf one's land!"

http://images.onesite.com/my.telegraph.co.uk/user/lord_melchett/20080501132206.jpg

:D

Here's info on good old queenie buying half a shopping mall near me!!

www.tbx1.com/latest-news/queen-buys-half-of-princesshay.html

[blackster]

no one really owns anything except the body they were born into this world with.......:confused:

royalty own NOTHING in reality, they just did a lot of ''rape & pillage'' back in the day & LAID CLAIM to all they're eyes rested on.

how dare the queen presume she actually owns this land, its not hers or her family's, we ALL just reside here on this earth, we do not ''own'' a thing, add to that the fact that in order to ''own'' something you've probably paid for it out of money which has no value anyway....

so land is traded upon a monetary system created by these monsters, which is worthless.:rolleyes: IMO


THE EARTH BELONGS TO THE EARTH....... NO ONE ELSE!! :mad:



:)SK


Well said :D:)

[revealerofsecrets]

http://www.whoownstheworld.com/about-the-book/largest-landowner/?ref=patrick.net

Largest Landowner

“Queen Elizabeth II the largest landowner on Earth.”


Queen Elizabeth II, head of state of the United Kingdom and of 31 other states and territories, is the legal owner of about 6,600 million acres of land, one sixth of the earth’s non ocean surface.

She is the only person on earth who owns whole countries, and who owns countries that are not her own domestic territory. This land ownership is separate from her role as head of state and is different from other monarchies where no such claim is made – Norway, Belgium, Denmark etc.

The value of her land holding. £17,600,000,000,000 (approx).

This makes her the richest individual on earth. However, there is no way easily to value her real estate. There is no current market in the land of entire countries. At a rough estimate of $5,000 an acre, and based on the sale of Alaska to the USA by the Tsar, and of Louisiana to the USA by France, the Queen’s land holding is worth a notional $33,000,000,000,000 (Thirty three trillion dollars or about £17,600,000,000,000). Her holding is based on the laws of the countries she owns and her land title is valid in all the countries she owns. Her main holdings are Canada, the 2nd largest country on earth, with 2,467 million acres, Australia, the 7th largest country on earth with 1,900 million acres, the Papua New Guinea with114 million acres, New Zealand with 66 million acres and the UK with 60 million acres.

She is the world’s largest landowner by a significant margin. The next largest landowner is the Russian state, with an overall ownership of 4,219 million acres, and a direct ownership comparable with the Queen’s land holding of 2,447 million acres. The 3rd largest landowner is the Chinese state, which claims all of Chinese land, about 2,365 million acres. The 4th largest landowner on earth is the Federal Government of the United States, which owns about one third of the land of the USA, 760 million acres. The fifth largest landowner on earth is the King of Saudi Arabia with 553 million acres

Largest five personal landowners on Earh Queen Elizabeth II 6,600 million acres
King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia 553 million acres
King Bhumibol of Thailand 126 million acres
King Mohammed IV of Morocco 113 million acres
Sultan Quaboos of Oman 76 million acres



"So much for The Overpopulation Myth"

I always knew bill gates was not the richest man on earth. He's probably not even close. Just more disinformation so you don't really know who's running the show. He's just a wealthy Puppet. Like Hearst and JP Morgan Etc.

[primordialman]

Well one thing is clear to me as an aussie poster, after the recent trip downunder by his highness Prince William (PR exercise) the corporate media Networks have vested interests in the House of windsor a non stop media barrage for 48 hours about williams visit and what he was upto at any given moment William partying, william on the ADF shooting range, william taking shite...etc etc,Iam you all get the picture.
In one sense i would hate to be him, Privacy is non existent!.

[sentient being]

Well one thing is clear to me as an aussie poster, after the recent trip downunder by his highness Prince William (PR exercise) the corporate media Networks have vested interests in the House of windsor a non stop media barrage for 48 hours about williams visit and what he was upto at any given moment William partying, william on the ADF shooting range, william taking shite...etc etc,Iam you all get the picture.
In one sense i would hate to be him, Privacy is non existent!.



Privacy is non existent? I don't think so. Like you said, simply a PR exercise, then he returns to his kissing cousins debauched privacy.

[sentient being]

up

[gallifrey]

Now that I come to think of it. It seems like the Brit Royals and Arab Royals are definitely kissing cousins, as some have alluded too. Hmmmm...quite interesting.

The Brit Royals are terrible when it comes to inbreeding. The fact that they marry from abroad usually hides this very well, but it is still the case. I mean the Queen is a German, to all intents and purposes, and Phil is of greek heritage.

[sentient being]

Sir Evelyn De Rothschild And The Black Nobility: Part 4


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObPPnH_jA3U

[rapunzel]

The Brit Royals are terrible when it comes to inbreeding. The fact that they marry from abroad usually hides this very well, but it is still the case. I mean the Queen is a German, to all intents and purposes, and Phil is of greek heritage.

How are they inbred? The Queen's mother was a commoner; her husband is
4th cousin (both great, great grandchildren of Victoria). Charles married a commoner and it's likely his two sons will as well and Andrew and Edward also both married commoners. And the unlovely Camilla is a commoner too. How is this inbred?

[sentient being]

How are they inbred? The Queen's mother was a commoner; her husband is
4th cousin (both great, great grandchildren of Victoria). Charles married a commoner and it's likely his two sons will as well and Andrew and Edward also both married commoners. And the unlovely Camilla is a commoner too. How is this inbred?


Come on now. She was Lady Diana Spencer, the daughter of an Earl. An Earl is about 2 down from a Prince. She was part of the British Aristocracy the moment she was conceived, nevermind when she married Charles.

Actually, Princess Diana WAS very much a Royal through her father's blood line (Spencer) which stretched back through the STUART LINE, i.e. the ancient Scottish Royal Family. You can check her genealogy on line if you want.

This was probably why she was arranged to marry Charles---he needed more "british" blood to solidify the claimants of his heirs: thus William and Harry are more "British Royal" than the Queen or Charles himself. As early as 1976, I was living in England where I watched a comedy show called Rising Damp: the skit was about dating and mentioned about the Royals and one of the female characters said, as early as November 1976: It's all set, don't you know? Charles is GOING TO MARRY LADY DIANA SPENCER !

And Diana was probably only around 15 then----so the marriage was already in works by the "Firm" long figured out in advance. Someone on that show "Rising Damp" knew someone from the inside the Royal Family, apparently--not suprising perhaps with the BBC's personnel and their relation with the Firm over the years.

Because of Lord Spencer's bloodline, Diana also was actually MORE BRITISH-ROYAL than the Queen herself (who though herself related to the Stuart line, is more directly descended through George I (The House of Hanover) from the house of Hanover-Battenberg, or as they anglicised it later "MOUNT BATTEN" to hide the German links). King George V was the one who changed the name of the Royal family to Windsor-Mountbatten around the time of the 1st World War---for obvious reasons since England was at war with Germany.

Diana's brother (an Oxford graduate) prepared a eulogy at Diana's funeral including the carefully wrought phrase when describing his sister:

"A VERY BRITISH GIRL....." which was meant to be a dig at the Battenbergs-Mountbatten's who are mixed German descent.

This was sort of an Inside Joke, but at the expense of the Queen who heard the message loud and clear.




Yes she was. Diana was a member of the aristocracy,the titled gentry.She was LADY Diana Spencer,daughter of the 8th Earl Spencer.Her family is even considered to be more grand than the Windsors,the Spencers being one of the most aristocratic in England.The Spencer bloodline includes two kings,a Duke and a saint.Her ancestry even linked her as an eleventh cousin to Charles.
Source(s):
http://www.althorp.com
Diana by Sarah Bradford
The Diana CHronicles by Tina Brown
2 years



Any potential bride of the Prince of Wales in 1981 would have had to have been aristocratic or royal, a virgin (or at least a girl with no known sexual history), and a Protestant.

Lady Diana Frances Spencer, third daughter of Edward John Spencer, Viscount Althorp, later Earl Spencer, and the Honourable Frances Burke Roche perfectly fit that job description--too bad that Prince Charles and his advisors didn't look at similarity of interests, ages, and temperment.

---Among the Honourable Diana Spencer's god parents was John Floyd, Chairman of Christie's.

---Diana Spencer's maternal grandmother was Ruth, Lady Fermoy, a lady-in-waiting to Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother.

---Diana Spencer was a descendant of the House of Stuart by way of Charles II through two illegitimate sons, Henry Fitzroy and Charles Lennox, as well as a descendant of James II through Henrietta Fitzjames, a daughter; she was a descendant of the Plantagnet line through Mary Bolelyn and was a descendant of the Tudors via Lady Catherine Gray and Lady Margaret Clifford. She was related to all eleven Dukes of Marlborough and Prime Minister Winston Churchill.

---Lady Diana Spencer finished up her schooling at Institut Alpin Videmanette in Rougemont, Switzerland, after failing her O levels twice. By way of contrast, Sarah Ferguson attended a secretarial college upon finishing school as did Sophie Rhys-Jones.

---Before she turned 17, Lady Diana Spencer's dad purchased an apartment for her in the Earls Court district of London, then a relatively inexpensive housing area within walking distance to High Street Kensington.*

I'd say all of the above qualifies Princess Diana as upper class before she married Prince Charles.



Royal descent


On her father's side, she was a descendant of King Charles II of England through four illegitimate sons:

Henry Fitzroy, 1st Duke of Grafton, son by Barbara Villiers, 1st Duchess of Cleveland
Charles Lennox, 1st Duke of Richmond and Lennox, son by Louise de Kérouaille
Charles Beauclerk, 1st Duke of St Albans, son by Nell Gwyn
James Crofts-Scott, 1st Duke of Monmouth, leader of a famous rebellion, son by Lucy Walter
She was also a descendant of King James II of England through an illegitimate daughter, Henrietta FitzJames, by his mistress Arabella Churchill. On her mother's side, Diana was Irish and Scottish, as well as a descendant of American heiress Frances Work, her mother's grandmother and namesake, from whom the considerable Roche fortune was derived.[citation needed]

The Spencers had been close to the British Royal Family for centuries, rising in royal favour during the 1600s. Diana's maternal grandmother, Ruth, Lady Fermoy, was a long-time friend and a lady-in-waiting to Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother. Her father had served as an equerry to King George VI and to Queen Elizabeth II.

In August 2007, the New England Historic Genealogical Society published Richard K. Evans's The Ancestry of Diana, Princess of Wales, for Twelve Generations.

From her marriage in 1981 to her divorce in 1996 she was styled Her Royal Highness the Princess of Wales. She was generally called Princess Diana by the media despite having no right to that particular honorific, as it is reserved for a princess by birthright rather than marriage. Though she was noted for her pioneering charity work, the Princess's philanthropic endeavours were overshadowed by a scandal-plagued marriage. Her bitter accusations of adultery, mental cruelty and emotional distress visited upon her by her husband riveted the world for much of the 1990s, spawning biographies, magazine articles and television movies.

From the time of her engagement to the Prince of Wales in 1981 until her death in a car accident in 1997, Diana was arguably the most famous woman in the world, the pre-eminent female celebrity of her generation: a fashion icon, an ideal of feminine beauty, admired and emulated for her high-profile involvement in AIDS issues and the international campaign against landmines. During her lifetime, she was often referred to as the most photographed person in the world. To her admirers, Diana, Princess of Wales was a role model - after her death, there were even calls for her to be nominated for sainthood - while her detractors saw her life as a cautionary tale of how an obsession with publicity can ultimately destroy an individual.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diana,_Princess_of_Wales

[sentient being]

How are they inbred? The Queen's mother was a commoner; her husband is
4th cousin (both great, great grandchildren of Victoria). Charles married a commoner and it's likely his two sons will as well and Andrew and Edward also both married commoners. And the unlovely Camilla is a commoner too. How is this inbred?




Ancestry


According to genealogist William Addams Reitwiesner, the Duchess of Cornwall's ancestry is predominantly French, English, Dutch, and Scottish. Through her French lineage, Camilla's maternal line great-great-grandmother was Sophia Mary MacNab of Hamilton, Ontario, who was herself the descendant of 17th century immigrants to Quebec, daughter of Sir Allan MacNab, and wife of William Coutts Keppel, Earl of Albemarle. Their son, George, was husband to Alice Edmonstone, who was the mistress of King Edward VII, himself the great-great-grandfather of Prince Charles: thus, Camilla and Charles are ninth cousins once removed.[37] Through her mother she is a descendant of Zacharie Cloutier.[38] This same lineage makes Camilla a distant relation of Celine Dion and Madonna,[39] while her bloodline is also connected to King Charles II, through his illegitimate son, Charles Lennox, Duke of Richmond; Thomas Cubitt, prominent Victorian builder; and, through the Earl of Albemarle, Judith Keppel, the first winner of the top prize on the television game show Who Wants to be a Millionaire?.[40] Through Charles II of England and Scotland, Camilla is also related, although distantly, to Diana, Princess of Wales.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camilla,_Duchess_of_Cornwall

[sentient being]

up

[rapunzel]

My point is that marrying a fifth cousin/6th cousin or whatever is not being inbred. Inbred is 1st cousins marrying 1st cousins for several generations. If by inbred people are meaning marrying other royals or people with some royal ancestry no matter how distant, then I agree that that is what the British royals do but you cannot really class that as "inbred."

We are all related to some degree in this country anyway. If you double the number of your ancestors every generation after 9 centuries you come up with the figure of 71 million ancestors for every individual. That's pure nonsense but proves that we are all related in some degree or other.

By describing Diana as a commoner I meant that she was not royal with a royal title. The dictionary meaning of commoner is confused but it is generally meant as non-royal.

[sentient being]

up

[camreeno]

Wouldn't that be great if she just died tomorrow?

[voice_of_asia]

Wouldn't that be great if she just died tomorrow?

And let Prince Charles to take over?;)

[camreeno]

And let Prince Charles to take over?;)The Queen is more annoying, so I guess.