If you have some demonstrated historical veracity of the Textus Receptus, let's see it. Maybe you can include a list of the Greek texts he used and their dates of origin, and include other information to document your claims.
Far more serious, you fail to note the glaring and inesapable defects in the Textus Sinaiticus and Textus Vaticanus, manuscripts so corrupt that even Rome won't use them or permit a full scholarly inspection of them.
Do you mean the 4th century manuscripts Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus? Both of these earliest of Bible manuscripts have been studied extensively, and used, by Rome and others. Your conspiracy theory about Rome doesn't hold water because the Codex Sinaiticus (most of it anyway) was acquired by the British Museum. Nice try though. If you do a search on Google using the common names, you can find quite a bit of information about them and actually see copies.