Posted on 01/14/2023 4:49:50 AM PST by fluorescence
WTH is the UK’s Deep State up to?!
If harry did what has been alleged then they certainly are part of this debacle...and given the way he behaves I certainly think the allegations could be true...and it will damage everyone if it comes out...some more than others.
Thus..I can see The Grey suits trying to shut it all down
Moral leadership? Where has that been?
Picked it up from the non-fiction section and put it back on a fiction shelf.
Felt good.....
Perhaps she should set her sights on Hunter Biden. He also loves publicity and seems to have ways of acquiring plenty of cash.
Get this...
I don’t think Andrew’s daughters involvement with Harry’s romantic disasters was a coinkydink...
Harry, you are such a tool...
Harry and M3gan Harkle, what a pair!
LOLs!! That's hilarious! Can't see how they can come back from this. It was the tabloid confessions of Diana and Charles that got this disfunctional ball rolling on Harry's end.
By “they, “ I mean H & M. There’s still hope that Charles and Camilla can remain semi-humiliated but dignified.
As a role model, the Queen remained a steadfast Christian all of her life, and spoke directly about Christ's meaning to the world twice a year or more in national broadcasts, and was pictured attending services at least weekly and many times more. Those who knew her believed in her sincerity of belief. She modeled Christian virtues in her behavior towards others.
As for her sons and grandson, modern laws prevented her from sending them to the Tower of London for beheading, although she did spare the nation a great deal of agony by staying enthroned for 70+ years, until Charles could live down his excesses and be counseled for years on end. I was encouraged that he took the Christian vows when he was invested the day of or after QE2's death.
For moral leadership you can now look to William and Catherine, who have been true partners in marriage for more than a decade and by all appearances excellent parents. They are "with it" on various hot topics but conservative and respectful of tradition and diplomacy. Neither the Queen nor they have bowed to political correctness in the way Charles and Meghan have with snuffling up to islam, nor have they nor the Queen gone out of their way to virtue-signal about LGBTQ as Diana did.
As future head of the British Commonwealth of 54 nations, not all of which are overtly Christian, such quiet family values and respect are the best the modern world can hope for from William, assuming Charles does not wreck things.
The enemies William and Catherine and their children have are the same ones traditional Americans have: the globalists, the islamic supremicists, the One-World-Governmentalists, the UN, the WEF, the communists, the oligarchs, the atheist billionaires, the anti-white racialists, the militant atheists, and assorted tools of the "principalities and powers in high places." It's a delicate balance, and the pressure is not something most people would want, even for all their castles and treasure. The U.S. needs their allyship. I wish them well.
Enough of this blinders-on approach toward evaluating British royals.
You are papering over a clear top-down failure of moral leadership.
Consider, for example, the following segment of a piece by Ann Barnhardt, published on her weblog after the Queen’s death.
I’ll add more in subsequent comments.
__________
Queen Elizabeth II, already being called “Elizabeth the Great”, presided as monarch over the most rapid and profound societal, cultural, religious and imperial collapse in human history, it seems to me. Any historians that would like to chime in on this question, please email me. I truly can’t think of another example in history that was as severe and as rapid as what has happened in Battenburgian Britain. Consider what the both the British Empire AND the British culture were in ARSH 1952, and what they are today. When Elizabeth took the throne, it was literally true that “the sun never set” on the British Empire. They had already lost India just five years earlier in ARSH 1947, but in ARSH 1952 the U.K. had real, legitimate control of massive swaths of Africa, a huge presence in SE Asia, Hong Kong, the entirety of Oceania and the South Pacific, the Falklands, a large presence in the West Indies and the Caribbean, and, of course, nearly half of North America. Today, almost every colony and territory has declared total independence, and the so-called “Commonwealth” nations are IN NAME ONLY. The United Kingdom has ZERO authority in say, Canada. Or Australia. Or New Zealand. None. And everyone knows it. And the only thing keeping Argentina from invading and taking the Falklands is the fact that Argentina is such a broke, incompetent kakistocracy that they can’t. But the Royal Navy today could NOT defend the Falklands, and everyone knows it.
But more importantly, as “Head of State and Head of Nation”, Queen Elizabeth signed off on the largest race-replacement scheme in human history. Today, the city of London IS LESS THAN HALF WHITE – not merely “British”, but WHITE. It was in the high 90 percentile BRITISH when she took the throne. The City of Leicester is a fully-conquered territory of the Caliphate. Non-musloids basically can’t walk the streets of Leicester without risking their lives. Many cities in the U.K. have surpassed the percentage musloid from which only hot war can reclaim the territory. Queen Elizabeth SIGNED OFF ON ALL OF THIS.
And need I remind one and all that she was all-in on the CoronaScam? Can anyone forget the sight of her – aged 94 – sitting completely alone wearing a Covid burqa AT HER OWN HUSBAND’S FUNERAL, projecting to the world the need to submit to and participate in the largest crime against humanity that has ever been perpetrated?
I want to really drive home the point to counter the Anglophiles in their bleatings of “But she doesn’t have any REAL authority…” She literally had to SIGN WITH HER SIGNATURE pieces of legislation. Think about that. If someone put some monstrous bill in front of YOU and said, “Sign off on this – it’s just ceremonial, but YOU still have to sign YOUR name to it…” would you do it? Would YOU sign off on no-fault divorce? The legalization of contraception? The legalization of sodomy? The legalization of ABORTION? The legalization of EUTHANASIA? Welp, Queen Elizabeth did. She signed her name on ALL OF IT, living in $20 billion luxury, completely participating in the “monarchy” AS THE SOVEREIGN MONARCH, “HEAD OF STATE” and “Defender of the Faith”, remember?
Queen Elizabeth also signed off as “popess” (“Defender of the Faith”, remember?) on the monstrosity of female “clergy” and “bishops”, and on sodomite unions in her allegedly Christian sect. It was so sad to see poor little Prince George and Princess Charlotte at the Queen’s funeral being introduced to the most hideous dyke wearing liturgical garb, masquerading as a Bishop, that I have ever seen.
Queen Elizabeth bestowed countless honors and knighthoods on the most open, disgusting sodomites and moral monstrosities, and British culture went from what we see depicted in “All Creatures Great and Small” to the totally degenerate, revolting Brit culture we see today ON HER WATCH. So when I saw people immediately beating the drum that Queen Elizabeth “reigned over the greatest advancement in British culture in history”, I just sat there shaking my head thinking, “How is it possible to be so utterly detached from reality?” Her reign was the most catastrophic civilizational collapse perhaps in human history.
And no, she didn’t HAVE to do any of it. She could have, as we human beings being created in the image and likeness of God as rational intellects with free will universally can, CHOOSE that which we do. What would YOUR price be? If someone offered you $20 billion, would you sign off on infanticide? Would you sign off on sodomite pseudo-marriage? For anyone who is morally sane, the answer is instantaneous: OF COURSE NOT, I’D RATHER DIE. Queen Elizabeth chose to sign, and then go ride horsies and play with corgi dogs. She chose to persist in the lie of Anglicanism, and happily carried the title “defender of the faith”. She COULD have converted and literally changed the entire course of history – radically – AT ANY TIME. Can you imagine having God give you THAT level of influence and power to change the world… and just blow it off and NOT act? If she had raised her children right, they would have converted with her. She could have restored England to Christ. Pray for her soul. Her Particular Judgment must have been… one shudders to think.
For me, the failure of Queen Elizabeth to act to save Baby Alfie Evans, who was STONE-COLD MURDERED by the National Health Service, the U.K.’s Molochian cult social medicine monstrosity, was what proved to me that she was, in fact, a personally terrible person. In ARSH 2017-18, baby Alfie Evans was stricken with a brain disorder. The NHS became diabolically obsessed with not only withholding treatment, but in ACTIVELY KILLING Baby Alfie. It got to the point that Italy granted Alfie full citizenship so that he could be medivacked to Rome and be treated at the Bambino Gesu Childrens’ Hospital. The NHS demanded in court that parental rights be stripped from Alfie’s parents because they REFUSED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE NHS’ MOLOCHIAN MURDER OF ALFIE. Queen Elizabeth COULD HAVE picked up a phone at any moment and sent the finest medivac plane in the U.K. – the one that would be presumably used FOR HER in an emergency – and let Baby Alfie, a dual citizen of Italy, go to Rome and not be murdered by HER OWN NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE.
On April 23, ARSH 2018, life support was withdrawn from Baby Alfie, and despite the claims of the NHS that Alfie had no brain, but only a cranium filled with water and cerebral-spinal fluid, the little tyke breathed on his own. The NHS, demonically enraged by Alfie’s refusal to be murdered, allowed Alfie to live for five days. In the wee hours of April 28th, they called Alfie’s parents out of the room on false pretenses, whereupon a female NHS employee went into Alfie’s room and injected poison into his I.V. He was dead in less than five minutes. Because the NHS is “god” in Battenburgian Britain, and Elizabeth was its high priestess.
This woman, Queen Elizabeth, called by sycophants with a straight face, “The World’s Grandmother”, said NOT a word, and thus by OMISSION, SILENCE and TURNING A BLIND EYE was complicit in the murder of Alfie Evans. One phone call. “Head of State and Head of Nation, and Defender of the Faith.” $20 billion net worth. Couldn’t be bothered to pick up the phone and save a little boy – one of her “subjects”. But God forbid any of her horsies or doggies were to get sick.
Now let’s talk about Queen Elizabeth’s failure as a mother. Three of her four children are civilly divorced, with one – by all accounts her favorite child, Prince Andrew – being a notorious psychopath ephebophile. Princess Anne is “remarried”. And most scandalously, Charles cohabits with another man’s wife – Mrs. Andrew Parker-Bowles, and Queen Elizabeth herself, in her final coup de grace against Holy Matrimony and Jesus Christ, declared that Mrs. Parker-Bowles would be called “Queen Consort”. Such a “good Christian woman with a deep, abiding faith.” Who spits in God’s face. THE MIND REELS.
Can you imagine having a $20 billion fortune at your disposal, knowing that your eldest son would be heir to the throne and so-called “defender of the faith”, and completely, totally failing to instill any sort of Christian morality in him, never mind your other three children? Queen Elizabeth had a front-row seat to her Uncle, King Edward VIII, abdicating so he could marry the creepy skank Mrs. Wallis Simpson, who was ACTUALLY Mrs. Earl Spencer (she was THRICE civilly married). She saw the crisis that ensued, and the horrific stress that it put on her father – stress which probably contributed to his premature death. Edward VIII was totally forbidden from “marrying” Wallis Spencer aka Simpson because even the Anglicans knew that divorce and remarriage was a total impossibility – MUCH LESS for the so-called “defender of the faith”.
Furthermore, what many people might not know is that there was ANOTHER crisis in which Queen Elizabeth HERSELF forbade her sister, Princess Margaret, from marrying a divorced man in ARSH 1953 shortly after she ascended the throne. Princess Margaret obeyed her sister and totally broke off the relationship. This was the last time that Queen Elizabeth would defend holy matrimony in any way. She permitted Princess Margaret to civilly divorce her husband in ARSH 1978, then for Princess Anne to divorce and “remarry” in ARSH 1992, then for Prince Andrew to divorce in ARSH 1996, and, of course, for Prince Charles to divorce Diana in ARSH 1996 and fake-marry Mr. Parker-Bowles’ wife, thus resulting in the “Queen Consort” of England and “wife” of the “Anglican pope” – DEFENDER OF THE FAITH, remember – actually being the wife of the cuckolded Andrew Parker-Bowles.
Queen Elizabeth signed off on all of this both on the micro level of her own family, AND as the “popess” of the Anglican sect. The civilization-crumbling scandal she DIRECTLY, PERSONALLY caused and officially ratified is enormous. And now, we have Prince William, next in line to the throne, and thus likewise in line to be “defender of the faith”, declaring publicly that he and his wife “would have absolutely no problem” if one or more of their children turn out to be sexually perverted or transvestites. Nevermind those poor, poor children of Prince Harry and Mrs. Trevor Engleson. Those poor kids hardly stand a chance being raised by a raging psychopath and a complete moron – ANOTHER fake, scandalous pseudo-marriage that Queen Elizabeth signed off on. But “defender of the faith”, remember?
But let’s zoom in even further on the whole “defender of the faith” thing. Don’t you think that if YOU were in Queen Elizabeth’s position, and you were told that YOU, PERSONALLY were the head – essentially the “popess” – of the Body and Bride of Christ in the British Empire, that you would sit down, think about it for about ninety seconds and realize that the very notion was laughably ridiculous? That the entire farce was set in motion by a syphilitic madman who couldn’t control his sexual appetites, and when his demand for an annulment (even Henry VIII did not DARE ask for a divorce from Catherine of Aragon – he wanted a declaration of nullity, because even insane with syphilis, Henry KNEW that divorce was a total fiction and utterly impossible) was rightly denied by the Pope, Henry then declared HIMSELF “pope” of the Church in England and granted HIMSELF an annulment. Even subsequent to this schism, Henry disposed of his subsequent “wives” when he became sexually bored with them not by divorce or even annulment, but by murdering them. THIS is Anglicanism. THIS is the office of “defender of the faith” that Queen Elizabeth cheerfully claimed for herself for SEVENTY YEARS. Tell me more about her “deep, abiding Christian faith.” While she sold her realm and subjects lock, stock and barrel, to the Freemasonic New World Order.
The entire notion is a VERY tasteless joke.
Now, on to Charles – so your eldest son is the heir to the throne and thus future “defender of the faith”. Don’t you think that Queen Elizabeth, what with her “deep, abiding Christian faith” and all, would have therefore seen to it that her son – the future “pope” of Christ’s “church in England” would, you know, be taught the Christian faith? Would actually be… CHRISTIAN? Instead, what do we see? Charles is a PUBLICLY DECLARED APOSTATE. Charles has said repeatedly over the years that when he ascended to the throne, that he would not consider himself “defender of THE faith”, but rather, “defender of faith” without the definite article. Folks, that is STONE-COLD TEXTBOOK APOSTASY. Charles has said that he will defend “faith” in whatever sense. So he is defender of faith in satan under the name “allah”, and defender of faith in demons masquerading as Hindu deities, and defender of faith in “mother earth”, and defender of faith in oneself as “god”. The notion of Charles being the head of anything relating to the Body and Bride of Christ is as laughable as Jorge Bergoglio being the actual Pope – both are open apostates.
Which brings us to something that bears mentioning – it is in fact POSSIBLE that Queen Elizabeth was never validly baptized at all. At the baptisms of high-ranking members of the British nobility, apparently the Anglicans would “spread the honor” around to various pseudo-clergymen by having THREE DIFFERENT MEN say the three phrases of Baptism. For example:
The Right Reverend Floppy Plonkington-Jones: Elizabeth, I baptize you in the name of the Father. (Pours water)
Archbishop Fruity Bouncington-Smith: And of the Son. (Pours water)
Archbishop Mashy Redd-Potatington: And of the Holy Ghost. (Pours water)
This is, of course, totally invalid. So the truth is that we really don’t know if ANY of these people were even baptized. It is POSSIBLE that Queen Elizabeth never was. Which is simultaneously sad and terrifying.
In the U.S. pre-Clinton, the State Department would have stepped in to remedy this security risk, negotiating with UK and the "adorable couple" to reach an understanding such as the one that Britain arrived at with the Nazi-sympathizing King Edward Simpson.
It's probable that the same individuals and their minions who stuffed the State Department with leftists, and the one in particular who has demonstrated contempt for Britain and who also handles Biden, are part of a network of advisors behind H&M's anti-monarchy screeds. H&M have become tools of the deep state.
OK, I see what is animating your point of view. Much as I admire Barnhardt on a number of issues, I’m not going to get back into the Reformation wars with you. Holding QE2 to account for Henry VIII’s immorality is like the American blacks holding MAGA responsible for slavery—over the top.
Elizabeth had to play the hand she was dealt by Parliament or step down and let Charles make it even worse. I think she chose wisely.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.