Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > Freeman-On-The-Land
Register FAQ Chat Social Groups Calendar Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 17-01-2011, 01:56 PM   #1
mark1963
Premier Subscribers
 
mark1963's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,592
Default How England was given to the Vatican

Sad, but true. What these scummy people will do is just beyond words.

Quote:
Pope Innocent III placed the kingdom of England under an interdict for five years between 1208 and 1213 after King John (King of England, reigned from 6 April 1199 until his death) refused to accept the pope's appointee Stephen Langton as Archbishop of Canterbury. In November 1209, King John was excommunicated, and in February 1213, Innocent III threatened stronger measures unless King John submitted. The papal terms for submission were accepted in the presence of the papal legate Pandulph in May 1213; in addition, John offered to surrender the Kingdom of England to God and the Saints Peter and Paul for a feudal service of 1,000 marks annually, 700 for England and 300 for Ireland.

King John's 'Act of Vassalage' to the Pope. May 15, 1213, surrounded by Bishops, Barons, Knights and various Nobles of the Realm, King John took an oath of fealty to the Pope on his knees before Pandulph. The occasion was the surrender of the Crown to the Pope. King John then made his submission, in the House of the Knights Templar.
Charter of Submission from the King of England, 1213


John, by the grace of God King of England, Lord of Ireland, Duke of Normandy

"By this charter attested by our golden seal we wish it to be known to you all that...we offer and freely yield to God and to SS Peter and Paul...and to the Holy Roman Church our mother, and to our lord Pope Innocent III and his Catholic successors, the whole kingdom of England and the whole kingdom of Ireland with all their rights and appurtenences for the remission of our sins and the sins of our whole family.... And now, receiving back these kingdoms from God and the Roman Church, and holding them as a feudatory vassal...we have pledged and sworn our fealty hencefort to our lord aforesaid, Pope Innocent III...and we bind in perpetuity our successors and legitimate heirs that without question they must similarly render fealty and acknowledge homage to the Supreme Pontiff holding office at the time...

...in lieu of all service and payment which we should render for them [the fiefs], the Roman Church is to receive annually...one thousand marks sterling...."
__________________
ďLet us rise up and be thankful, for if we didnít learn a lot today, at least we learned a little, and if we didnít learn a little, at least we didnít get sick, and if we got sick, at least we didnít die; so, let us all be thankful.Ē - Buddha
mark1963 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-01-2011, 02:02 PM   #2
jimmythebee
Senior Member
 
jimmythebee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 295
Default

hence the bulletproof pope-mobile
jimmythebee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-01-2011, 02:17 PM   #3
rumpole
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 855
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mark1963 View Post
Sad, but true. What these scummy people will do is just beyond words.
Henry V111, the Reformation, Dissolution of the monastries, the fact that catholics were formally (by statute) discriminated for 100's of years in Britain? Do these events have any resonance with you?


It's a historical fact Catholics were severely discriminated against. If the Vatican 'owned' Britain then how on earth did they allow this to happen? Surely they'd want to 'look after' their own people?

Last edited by rumpole; 17-01-2011 at 02:24 PM.
rumpole is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-01-2011, 02:37 PM   #4
mark1963
Premier Subscribers
 
mark1963's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,592
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rumpole View Post
Henry V111, the Reformation, Dissolution of the monastries, the fact that catholics were formally (by statute) discriminated for 100's of years in Britain? Do these events have any resonance with you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Emancipation

It's a historical fact Catholics were severely discriminated against. If the Vatican 'owned' Britain then how on earth did they allow this to happen? Surely they'd want to 'look after' their own people?
They sure do and good old Henry sold out by using Edmund Bonner as Bishop of London, a catholic. Henry was of two minds all of the time.

Then we have the position of Archbishop of Canterbury which is now a protestant position but is the same position that the head of the RC church in England had prior to protestantism. So in reality, but just hidden the RC church is heading the C of E.

Now in the last few days we have Anglican priests being made into RC priests whilst being Anglicans. So they are finally showing their roman colours.
__________________
ďLet us rise up and be thankful, for if we didnít learn a lot today, at least we learned a little, and if we didnít learn a little, at least we didnít get sick, and if we got sick, at least we didnít die; so, let us all be thankful.Ē - Buddha
mark1963 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-01-2011, 03:06 PM   #5
rumpole
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 855
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mark1963 View Post
They sure do and good old Henry sold out by using Edmund Bonner as Bishop of London, a catholic. Henry was of two minds all of the time.

Then we have the position of Archbishop of Canterbury which is now a protestant position but is the same position that the head of the RC church in England had prior to protestantism. So in reality, but just hidden the RC church is heading the C of E.

Now in the last few days we have Anglican priests being made into RC priests whilst being Anglicans. So they are finally showing their roman colours.
Edward V1 (Henry's son) was a dye in the wool protestant & was Elizabeth 1 & James 1. James 11 was booted out because of a whiff of Catholicism (the Glorious Revolution) & the Hanoverians were all good protestants.

x 3 ex Anglican bishops converted to catholicism because of the ordination of women bishops. Hardly a mass reversion to 'popery' bearing in mind the C of E has 10,000 clergymen (& women) on its books.

No view on the historical discrimination against Catholics?
rumpole is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-01-2011, 03:41 PM   #6
mark1963
Premier Subscribers
 
mark1963's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,592
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rumpole View Post
Edward V1 (Henry's son) was a dye in the wool protestant & was Elizabeth 1 & James 1. James 11 was booted out because of a whiff of Catholicism (the Glorious Revolution) & the Hanoverians were all good protestants.

x 3 ex Anglican bishops converted to catholicism because of the ordination of women bishops. Hardly a mass reversion to 'popery' bearing in mind the C of E has 10,000 clergymen (& women) on its books.

No view on the historical discrimination against Catholics?
Yes, it was damned shameful what Henry did, killing many thousands of people because they did not share his beliefs at the time.

Did Protestantism seem to reign for a great while, yes, of course it did. Would Rome allow this to happen? Probably if it had in mind a bigger goal at some point in the future. What's the saying, lose small to gain big.

Let me ask you rumploe as I believe that history is one of your passions. Was King John's 'Act of Vassalage' repealed? Could it ever be as it states in perpetuity?
__________________
ďLet us rise up and be thankful, for if we didnít learn a lot today, at least we learned a little, and if we didnít learn a little, at least we didnít get sick, and if we got sick, at least we didnít die; so, let us all be thankful.Ē - Buddha
mark1963 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-01-2011, 04:06 PM   #7
eternal_spirit
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 31,288
Default

Rothschilds funded both Napolean and the English, they tricked the English into borrowing more money for the wars by sending false reports from France saying the English were losing the wars & needed more money to win.

A Rotshchild agent was sent from France to England to tell the news to the King & to borrow money.

The debt incured allowed the banking cabals to gain more political power/money/land. Funny how history repeats itself? As if it was planned that way..

Around this time Rothchilds & fellow members of their tribe were allowed back into England by Cromwell after Jews were banished from England since 1215 by King John.

The false foreign Dutch king William of Orange (Protestant) was put on the throne after desposing the true King.

Sephardic Jews also married into the British aristocracy as many Sephardics were Rothschild's companions & bankers etc - soon after Jews were allowed back into Britain by Cromwell (Protesant).

The bankers have held much power & influence of the Crown & government ever since

Quote:
The Jewish banking families made it a practice to marry their female offspring to spendthrift European aristocrats. In Jewish law, the mixed offspring of a Jewish mother is Jewish. (The male heirs marry Jews although the Victor and Jacob Rothschild are exceptions .) For example, in 1878 Hannah Rothschild married Lord Rosebery. who later became Prime Minister. In 1922 Louis Mountbatten, the uncle of Prince Philip and cousin of the Queen married the granddaughter of Jewish banker Ernest Cassel, one of the wealthiest men in the world. Winston Churchill's mother, Jenny (Jacobson) Jerome, was Jewish. By the beginning of the 1900s, there were very few English aristocrat families left that hadn't intermarried with Jews. It was said that, when they visited the Continent, Europeans were surprised to see Jewish looking persons with English titles and accents.

According to L.G. Pine, the Editor of Burke's Peerage , Jews "have made themselves so closely connected with the British peerage that the two classes are unlikely to suffer loss which is not mutual. So closely linked are the Jews and the lords that a blow against the Jews in this country would not be possible without injuring the aristocracy also." (Tales of the British Aristocracy1957, p.219.)
The Archbishop of Cantubury (Anglican) said let Muslims have Shariah law in the Uk (and they have partial Shariah)
Catholics would not want this or the Pope.

The Royals (Anglicans) have Muhammads genes in them - Catholics got banned from being Royalty over 300 years ago - the ban still stands.
eternal_spirit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-01-2011, 04:15 PM   #8
rumpole
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 855
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mark1963 View Post
Yes, it was damned shameful what Henry did, killing many thousands of people because they did not share his beliefs at the time.

Did Protestantism seem to reign for a great while, yes, of course it did. Would Rome allow this to happen? Probably if it had in mind a bigger goal at some point in the future. What's the saying, lose small to gain big.

Let me ask you rumploe as I believe that history is one of your passions. Was King John's 'Act of Vassalage' repealed? Could it ever be as it states in perpetuity?

If an old Statute conflicts with a new one then the new one applies. Therefore Henry V111's Act of Supremacy (1534) repeals Johns Act of Vassalage.
rumpole is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-01-2011, 06:20 PM   #9
dontpushme
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,823
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by eternal_spirit View Post
Rothschilds funded both Napolean and the English, they tricked the English into borrowing more money for the wars by sending false reports from France saying the English were losing the wars & needed more money to win.

A Rotshchild agent was sent from France to England to tell the news to the King & to borrow money.

The debt incured allowed the banking cabals to gain more political power/money/land. Funny how history repeats itself? As if it was planned that way..

Around this time Rothchilds & fellow members of their tribe were allowed back into England by Cromwell after Jews were banished from England since 1215 by King John.

The false foreign Dutch king William of Orange (Protestant) was put on the throne after desposing the true King.

Sephardic Jews also married into the British aristocracy as many Sephardics were Rothschild's companions & bankers etc - soon after Jews were allowed back into Britain by Cromwell (Protesant).

The bankers have held much power & influence of the Crown & government ever since



The Archbishop of Cantubury (Anglican) said let Muslims have Shariah law in the Uk (and they have partial Shariah)
Catholics would not want this or the Pope.

The Royals (Anglicans) have Muhammads genes in them - Catholics got banned from being Royalty over 300 years ago - the ban still stands.
not that it really matters in the bigger scheme of things, but i read the jews got expelled in 1290.

Just think its important to get dates right, and it just so happens, i was doing some historic research



Quote:
In 1290, King Edward I issued an edict expelling all Jews from England. Lasting for the rest of the Middle Ages, it would be over 350 years until it was formally overturned in 1656. The edict was not an isolated incident, but the culmination of over 200 years of conflict on the matters of usury.
dontpushme is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 17-01-2011, 09:01 PM   #10
mark1963
Premier Subscribers
 
mark1963's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,592
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by eternal_spirit View Post
Rothschilds funded both Napolean and the English, they tricked the English into borrowing more money for the wars by sending false reports from France saying the English were losing the wars & needed more money to win.

A Rotshchild agent was sent from France to England to tell the news to the King & to borrow money.

The debt incured allowed the banking cabals to gain more political power/money/land. Funny how history repeats itself? As if it was planned that way..

Around this time Rothchilds & fellow members of their tribe were allowed back into England by Cromwell after Jews were banished from England since 1215 by King John.

The false foreign Dutch king William of Orange (Protestant) was put on the throne after desposing the true King.

Sephardic Jews also married into the British aristocracy as many Sephardics were Rothschild's companions & bankers etc - soon after Jews were allowed back into Britain by Cromwell (Protesant).

The bankers have held much power & influence of the Crown & government ever since



The Archbishop of Cantubury (Anglican) said let Muslims have Shariah law in the Uk (and they have partial Shariah)
Catholics would not want this or the Pope.

The Royals (Anglicans) have Muhammads genes in them - Catholics got banned from being Royalty over 300 years ago - the ban still stands.
Who runs the Rothschild's?

How do you know the Catholics do not want shariah?

So which is it, the royals have Jewish genes or mohammedian genes?
__________________
ďLet us rise up and be thankful, for if we didnít learn a lot today, at least we learned a little, and if we didnít learn a little, at least we didnít get sick, and if we got sick, at least we didnít die; so, let us all be thankful.Ē - Buddha
mark1963 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-01-2011, 09:02 PM   #11
mark1963
Premier Subscribers
 
mark1963's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,592
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rumpole View Post
If an old Statute conflicts with a new one then the new one applies. Therefore Henry V111's Act of Supremacy (1534) repeals Johns Act of Vassalage.
Do you have evidence of this?
__________________
ďLet us rise up and be thankful, for if we didnít learn a lot today, at least we learned a little, and if we didnít learn a little, at least we didnít get sick, and if we got sick, at least we didnít die; so, let us all be thankful.Ē - Buddha
mark1963 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-01-2011, 10:47 PM   #12
rumpole
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 855
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mark1963 View Post
Do you have evidence of this?
Vauxhall Estates, Ltd. v. Liverpool Corporation [1932] 1 KB 733
rumpole is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-01-2011, 02:50 PM   #13
mark1963
Premier Subscribers
 
mark1963's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,592
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rumpole View Post
Vauxhall Estates, Ltd. v. Liverpool Corporation [1932] 1 KB 733
It appears what you have given me is an act specifically replacing another earlier act but called the same. In this case the Housing Act.

Is there any evidence that King John's Act was replaced or annulled in any way?
__________________
ďLet us rise up and be thankful, for if we didnít learn a lot today, at least we learned a little, and if we didnít learn a little, at least we didnít get sick, and if we got sick, at least we didnít die; so, let us all be thankful.Ē - Buddha
mark1963 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-01-2011, 02:55 PM   #14
mark1963
Premier Subscribers
 
mark1963's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,592
Default

Here is the Act of Supremacy:

Quote:
THE ACT OF SUPREMACY (1534)


Albeit, the King's Majesty justly and rightfully is and oweth to be the supreme head of the Church of England, and so is recognised by the clergy of this realm in their Convocations; yet nevertheless for corroboration and confirmation thereof, and for increase of virtue in Christ's religion within this realm of England, and to repress and extirp all errors, heresies and other enormities and abuses heretofore used in the same, Be it enacted by authority of this present Parliament that the King our sovereign lord, his heirs and successors kings of this realm, shall be taken, accepted and reputed the only supreme head in earth of the Church of England called Anglicana Ecclesia, and shall have and enjoy annexed and united to the imperial crown of this realm as well the title and style thereof, as all honours, dignities, preeminences, jurisdictions, privileges, authorities, immunities, profits and commodities, to the said dignity of supreme head of the same Church belonging and appertaining. And that our said sovereign lord, his heirs and successors kings of this realm, shall have full power and authority from time to time to visit, repress, redress, reform, order, correct, restrain and amend all such errors, heresies, abuses, offences, contempts and enormities, whatsoever they be, which by any manner spiritual authority or jurisdiction ought or may lawfully be reformed, repressed, ordered, redressed corrected, restrained or amended, most to the pleasure of Almighty God, the increase of virtue in Christ's religion, and for the conservation of the peace, unity and tranquillity of this realm: any usage, custom, foreign laws, foreign authority, prescription or any other thing or things to the contrary hereof notwithstanding.
It does not appear to annul King John's Act but seems to add a layer, namely the Church of England.

It does use this wording but that is too broad to say it actually annuls the previous Act.

Quote:
and to repress and extirp all errors, heresies and other enormities and abuses heretofore used in the same
__________________
ďLet us rise up and be thankful, for if we didnít learn a lot today, at least we learned a little, and if we didnít learn a little, at least we didnít get sick, and if we got sick, at least we didnít die; so, let us all be thankful.Ē - Buddha
mark1963 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

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

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

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:05 PM.