Death of Prince Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh at 99 years of age.

One can translate this history to the Royals today. Psychopathic forces will no doubt exert pressure on people like the Queen and her family - they're a prime target, given who they are. There's a lot of public resentment these days against anyone who shows values of responsibility, success, character, and morals. So the COINTELPRO machine can easily pump out rumours and assumptions into the public sphere claiming all Royals are evil, and the lazy nihilists find an easy scapegoat to project their angst on, ignorant (as I admittedly was) of histories like Queen Anne's, and ignorant also of how political power actually looks in reality.

Exactly so. And it seems to me that David Icke is a tool (useful idiot) of said COINTELPRO. His utterly absurd depiction of the royal family as shape-shifting, baby-eating lizards is not just absurd for this reality, it gives the research into UFOs, aliens, and abductions a very bad taint.

But that doesn't mean that 4D STS denizens do not pull some strings now and again! It's just easier for them to manipulate key persons to produce the material that shifts humanity the way they want them shifted; and Icke is a case in point. To really understand this, one should read Karla Turner's "Masquerade of Angels." David Icke has been similarly manipulated and his totally bizarre rantings have poisoned the minds of so many, including, apparently, some members of this forum.

At the same time, rumors and slanders can be pumped out for simple political reasons by totally 3D forces including intelligence agencies. The royals are NOT in control of Intel agencies, the agencies are in control of the royals and the smart ones know it and toe the line. The royals did not go after Diana, the intel agencies did and shifted the blame to the royals as another layer of control of them and insurance that they would continue to toe the line.

The Royal family has been held HOSTAGE ever since. If not earlier. How sad and horrible. So much for being ''privileged''. They are more like victims, really. They have to put on a show. If they don't, just look at the past. Or look at Diana. The Queen has very little freedom of movement in this game.

The real power uses them only because they need their ''seal of divine approval''. This is what a good portion of the population looks up to. Perhaps even more than democracy itself.

That said. Most members of the Royal family are probably not even aware of this. Or only partially.

Exactly. Very well said.
Last edited:
I became aware of Prince Philip's death when I turned on my tv to check the weather. It happened to be on CBS (early morning) which was announcing that news. Being that he was 99 years old (soon to be 100 if he lived), I wasn't surprised and didn't register any real emotion. I rather clump the royals in with celebrities which, at this point in time, I truly can't stand at all - especially all their award shows basking glory upon themselves along with over-the-top PC! :barf: I did shortly access Sott to see if his passing was noted and was surprised to see no article (unless it had already dropped off the main page). What I did see was the satirical article in the Lighten Up section. I have to admit I was a bit taken aback by that. Seemed rather insensitive (even if I agreed with the jest) especially as there seemed to be no legitimate article in the main section. I did see later that a respectful article was posted although by then, it had dropped to the very last position before disappearing.

As I said before, I wasn't fond or a fan of Prince Philip. What bothered me the most was his pressure upon Charles to marry Diana when Charles really wanted to wed Camilla, the woman he actually loved. Camilla, although a Royal, was not of the appropriate tier of Royalness to be considered as Charles' wife. And so the tragedy of the Charles/Diana marriage ensued. Plus, Philip passed on the approval and even encouragement of non-fidelity in marriage to Charles. Lord Mountbatten was a strong influence as well to both Prince Philip and Charles if memory serves me correctly according to the PBS Royal Family documentary. I do wonder if Diana would have become known to the world had the Charles/Camilla marriage taken place. She was certainly a beauty that was unlikely to remain in the woodwork. It should be noted - and presumed to be true - that Charles dropped to his knees in overwhelming grief upon viewing Diana's dead body. The man has a heart and real feelings despite all the negative forces he's been subjected to. I do not envy the life that the Royal Family has been destined to live.

It is incredible that this forum exists on this planet. The more I know, the more I marvel at it.

Thanks to the elders for all their work. That allows us to learn a lot with the little time that daily obligations leave us.

The research literature in Laura's books always takes my breath away.

She has read all that, she has understood it and she has separated the wheat from the chaff. Amazing.

Once again I have learned something unexpected from reading this thread.

Thank you "elders".
I agree whole-heartedly with this! I just wish I had a failsafe memory that could retain it all!
“The Royal family has been held HOSTAGE ever since. If not earlier. How sad and horrible. So much for being ''privileged''. They are more like victims, really. They have to put on a show. If they don't, just look at the past. Or look at Diana. The Queen has very little freedom of movement in this game.”

All of humanity is now being overtly confronted by this “hostage” situation through the covid/reset/vaccine/lockdown/loss of liberty meme. My feelings of empathy are more generalized rather than individualized except where my family and friends are concerned. Everyone here, everyone remotely awake to what is happening will have the opportunity to choose whether to acquiesce and turn a blind eye in order to remain in the “royal household” (of convenient sustainabilityor become some kind of outcast with the attendant hardships.

“Royal” blood(lines) is a fascinating topic. I think there are different lines and types intersecting at different times and places.
While certain lines may come to dominate through treachery and coercion, it doesn’t mean everyone within that bloodline partakes of that STS nature.

That said, the royals are no more victims that any of the rest of us. We all chose to be here, whatever the circumstances, for whatever reasons. That, personal responsibility, is usually the more empowering attitude To assume and place to learn from.
I learned of Philip's death from Babylon Bee. My understanding is that he had a very difficult youth, with much family trauma and heartbreak. Certainly it would not be easy to live in the spotlight, even with material wealth. I read many times of his devotion to his children, his preference for cooking their meals whenever possible. I'm sure he saw a lot in his 99 years.
As to all the conspiracy theories, I'm inclined to read them as much as the next person. I can't see that these people are anything but humans living in unusual circumstances. They seem to have the same kinds of problems as any other families, just worse for for the 24/7 coverage.
How do we explain the actions of someone like Prince Andrew? Are the accusations against him smears?

If he's guilty, how does that impact the wider royal family and the queen?

What actions? Possibly having had sex with a young woman? Not sure that needs much explanation. How it impacts the wider royal family is pretty clear, it's embarrassing.
Let's substitute prostitutes for underage girls which is the case for Andrew.

He was probably told she was 18, and she was paid/whatever for her services. That's how Epstein/Mossad works, they try to get 'dirt' on as many 'important' people as possible. Did you ever see the list of people who visited Epstein's island? Stephen Hawkings was there.
Everyone here, everyone remotely awake to what is happening will have the opportunity to choose whether to acquiesce and turn a blind eye in order to remain in the “royal household” (of convenient sustainability or become some kind of outcast with the attendant hardships.
Reading the above brought a thought to mind that I will try to make coherent. It is the idea that at some point Christians will be forced to choose between their religious beliefs or acquiesce to the controllers' demands. Is this not the choice that is coming into view via the Covid psyop? One can either hold onto Truth (the true essence of Christianity/STO imo) and suffer the consequences of not going along with what the controlling STS are bringing about globally i.e. lies regarding the threat of Covid-19, lies regarding the best treatments for Covid-19, lies regarding the Covid-19 health directives (masks, social distancing, threat to social interaction with elderly, quarantines/lockdowns, effectiveness of approved official treatment, vaccine rather than experimental gene modification, etc.) or just cave in and abandon one's true beliefs in order to remain safe from harm/restrictions. We are being forced to choose between Truth or lies - STO Christ vs STS satan - with the choice for Truth resulting in very negative consequences that could escalate to internment and complete loss of all freedom - even forced vaccination. How many will be committed to that level of resistance? And I'm thinking this choice has been expressed in a different (but with the same essence) way/form that involves more or less rejecting Christ (and secure safety) that I can't quite come up with right now. I hope this is making sense.
found this interesting video about Philips childhood - mostly about Princess Alice, his mother.

The Unbelievable life of Princess Alice

Had no idea, remarkable, and it pulls on many strings (some can be seen in many of the Romance series books concerning families) that set the Prince, upon his course, with Alice as his mother.

Having Freud show up in Alice's first institutional stay, prescribing as he did, was ominous.

Despite the story of Alice; how she suffered, tended the wounded and operated soup kitchens and sheltered jewish people in Greece under nazi occupation, the story shines light on this little boy, her son Phillip, wherein both he and mother were ultimately under the influences of others for critical periods of time.

There is scene, whereby Phillip signs a guest book which well captures his psychology at that period in his life = Phillip - "No fixed abode" until her married Elizabeth:

Edit: spell/addition

Additionally not said, was that Alice, Phillip's mother, was deaf as a little girl. Alices's mother made her work hard to overcome her handicap. In this, she learned to lip read in three different languages.

Phillip's father, Andrew, had been held as a prisoner in Greece during the revolution, however upon regaining Europe upon his release, it was not long until he abandoned Alice as she declined.

Many details to this film.

Last edited:
The idea that there ARE certain bloodlines of individuals who are special and inherently capable of ruling is very old. Consider the caste system of India as one example of the survival of this idea. I've written about it to some extent in "The Secret History of the World." The Cs have even alluded to it here and there, and that some bloodlines are more potent than others. However, they also made it clear that such bloodlines can be either STO or STS. The Cs have said that karmic potential marries with genetics. But then, the Cs also made this curious statement:

What can that possibly mean? I followed up with another question about this:

So, we can suppose that these so-called "royal bloodlines" are something put in place by STS controllers and that the control "extends off-planet" in some way.

Note my last question carefully:

The response indicates that I'm onto something here.

Royal bloodlines come and go. Someone not of "royal lineage" can rise up and take over and create a new "royal lineage" that may last for a time, and then go under when another one rises up. I suppose such are the cycles mentioned above, in some sense. There are many such cycles in history where rebellion against the ruling powers overthrows them and then, later, a new "ruling power" comes along. Or, in fact, the new ruling power is responsible for overthrowing the previous ruling power. In other words, there does not appear to be any truly consistent, long-lasting, apparent "royal bloodline." However, they do all seem to want to connect themselves to the previous bloodline somehow or other, either by marriage or creation of myths. The Greeks, and then the Romans, connected themselves back to the ruling powers of a previous age by asserting that the first was descended from the Greeks who defeated Troy, and the second that they were descended from the Trojans. There are other examples in Mesopotamian and Egyptian histories. And of course, many examples in our more recent history since the fall of Rome. The British claim to be descended from the Trojans via the Romans, in fact. It's a topic that requires some study in order to form any conclusions about what, exactly, the Cs might have meant.

The bottom line is this: yes, there are apparently various types of "bloodlines"; we certainly learned enough about that reading David Reich's book about genetics (and other related texts), but in the end, all of them are connected to each other in some way so I don't think there is any real "royal bloodline" that anyone can point to. I suppose, if human beings were treated like livestock, they could be bred up to have stronger tendencies of this or that, and perhaps, via 4D influence, some of that actually happens. That might create a sort of "royal bloodline" with connections off-planet. If you manipulate the genes, you can manipulate what the soul can "marry" with in some way.

But, what I am getting to is this: the current British royal family really only has the most tenuous connection to previous dynasties and there are many breaks in the chain of genetic transmission. If you do enough genealogy, you see this plainly. You will also see, by studying history, that the British royal family has almost nothing in the way of power at all.
I am going to stick my neck out here and suggest that the "Sign of struggle out of sequence with pre-ordained activities of Royal Blood Lines" might refer to the usurpation of the throne of James II by William III (a Dutch prince of the House of Orange) and his wife Mary Stuart, James's daughter.

The Stuart Kings reigned through a very turbulent period of British history. Guy Fawkes tried to assassinate James I. Charles I plunged his country into a civil war and lost his head on the chopping block due to his application of the 'Divine Right of Kings' principle and his neocatholicism. This led to Britain for the first and only time becoming a republic under Cromwell. Charles II eventually regained the throne but his reign would encompass the Plague in 1666 and the Great Fire of London. Not leaving a successor (he had lots of illegitimate children and I am descended from one), the throne passed to his brother James II. James had by his accession converted to the catholic faith of his French mother and this earned him the distrust, indeed loathing, of much of the protestant nobility and the powerful, growing mercantile classes of Britain. A plot was hatched by a number of Members of Parliament (probably Freemasons) to oust him after the birth of his son (James the 'Old Pretender'), as this would mean having a catholic successor once James died. Hence, they invited William and Mary to come over to England and assume the throne in what British history now calls the 'Glorious Revolution' of 1689. James abdicated and fled to France for his life. One reason he had to do this was he lost the support of John Churchill, the Duke of Marlborough (Sir Winston Churchill's ancestor) his best general who stood the English army down when William of Orange arrived with 20,000 solodiers and the Dutch Navy, the most powerful in the World at that time. When Winston Churchill came to write his 'History of the English Speaking Peoples' he had grave difficulty writing about this episode, as he could come to no other conclusion than to view his ancestor as a traitor to his King.

William of Orange got both Houses of Parliament (at gunpoint!) to enact the Bill of Rights, which now underpins the role of our constitutional monarchy, once and for all burying the notion of the divine right of kings assumed by the Stuarts. However, that was not the end of the Stuarts since James II would try and win back his throne with French support until he lost the Battle of the Boyne in Northern Ireland (which had disastrous consequences for my family when my ancestor was forced to go into exile with James in France and our lands were sequestrated). His son James, as the Old Pretender, would also try to regain the throne and there was a muted rebellion in Scotland in 1715. His grandson, Bonnie Prince Charlie, would mount the most serious challenge in 1745 with the Highland Uprising which culminated in the disastrous defeat at Culloden Moor. The ramifications of all this still resonate down to our present times. Just think of the 'Troubles' in Ireland and the continuing push for Scottish independence. Many Americans do not know that when the US revolutionaries sought to replace George III as King of America, and before determining their wish to become a republic, they sounded out Bonnie Prince Charlie, then in exile in Italy, to see if he would take the throne of America. He refused on the grounds that he had no issue and feared the throne would revert back to the Hanoverians upon his death.​

The last Stuart monarch to reign was Queen Anne who died without issue paving the way for the present Hanoverian dynasty to take over the throne in the 18th century. Ever since then, the Kings and Queens of Great Britain have been beholden to an elected Parliament and have become mere figureheads as head of state.

However, there was another consequence of the deposing of the Stuarts, which is not readily apparent and may have some bearing on what the C's were alluding to. The Stuart kings were ardent Freemasons and led the masonic lodges in England and Scotland. Recall Charles II's links with the Invisible College (people like Sir Francis Bacon and Sir Christopher Wren) and the Royal Society which he instituted (Bacon's rosicrucian dream). When James II fled into exile, he took the masonic ritual books and records with him. This led to a schsim in English Freemasonry and required the English lodge to reinvent masonic ritual. As a result there became two branches of Freemasonry, the English 'York Rite' and the 'Scottish Rite' that became widespread in Europe and the United States. Most of the US revolutionary leaders who signed the Declaration of Independence were Scottish Rite Freemasons. who have 33 degree instead of the English three degrees.

Although the effects of the English Civil War were not really felt in the fledgling American colonies of the 17th century, the usurpation of the Stuart throne would ultimately have far reaching consequences on the history of America, given the role Scottish Rite Freemasonry would play there in the 18th century and the power America has become today. Whether the Stuart monarchs would have bought into Sir Francis Bacon's 'New Atlantis' in America no one can tell now but the forces unleashed by the Rosicrucians and the Freemasons in the 18th century have certainly sought in our time to make that dream a reality (or a nightmare depending on your viewpoint!). I seem to recall that George Bush Senior sometimes referred to the USA as the New Atlantis (he was a 33rd degree Freemason) and his family have claimed that their ancestor sailed to the New World on the Mayflower (can anyone substantiate that?).​

Anyway, I could be wrong about this but given the role the British Empire would play in shaping the modern world, particularly during the 19th century, someone certainly decided at some point (perhaps at 4th D level) that the Stuarts must play no part in it.

My two cents worth from an unreconstructed jacobite.
A lot of this modern anti-Royalism should be thrown at Icke's door I think. His whole child murdering shape shifters schtick has had a residual effect on others who flirt on the fringes of conspiracy sites. I prefer to see a married couple who have stayed together for over 70 years, through thick and thin, and yes they have had their rough times.

I was once very anti-royal as a leftist in my youth, but my mother humanised them to me over conversation, explaining their appeal and what good they do for the country. To put it short my mother was a good obyvatel and I was a leftist fool, ignorant to my supposed core, lol. I owe a lot of my knowledge and being to learning from my mum and pops, actually. What was funny looking back is that I knew my attitude was a bit nasty, but I chose to overlook it because of the whole class warfare thing. reminds me of Jordan Peterson remarking of leftists that "they didn't love the working class, they just hated the rich". I stand guilty as charged, I was like that at about 21,22 years of age. I changed as I read and grew with time. I also chose to speak less and listen more over the years too, and it's worked out pretty well.

As for the Royal couple, they stayed together through extraordinary times, getting us from horse drawn carriages to the quantum age. As a former leftist I apologise for coarse attitudes of the past, and pay my respects. He'll get the respect he's due, the Brits have shown that much already.
I found this interesting video about Philips childhood - mostly about Princess Alice, his mother.

The Unbelievable life of Princess Alice

Wow, unbelievable is right, what a brave woman. Thanks for posting, this is the first time I have watched anything concerning the royal family. This thread is enlightening to say the least. Philip wasn't that bad, he had a heart. Honoring his mothers wishes to be buried in mount olive. Princess Alice in Buckingham Palace in her nun outfit smoking woodbines, brilliant. This thread has been an eye opener. Thanks everyone
Bjorn said: The Royal family has been held HOSTAGE ever since. If not earlier. How sad and horrible. So much for being ''privileged''. They are more like victims, really. They have to put on a show. If they don't, just look at the past. Or look at Diana. The Queen has very little freedom of movement in this game.

It is worth recalling that Lord Rothschild once famously quipped during the 19th Century: "I don't care who sits on the throne of England as long as I have the power to issue money". This was at a time when Queen Victoria ruled over a vast empire.

One of her most famous prime ministers was Benjamin Disraeli who was also a fiction writer: Coningsby (novel) - Wikipedia.

Disraeli spoke of the "Hidden Hand" having a powerful influence behind the scenes, which almost certainly was a subtle reference to the Rothschild family. Today we would refer to the 'Deep State'.

I saw a picture a couple of years back of Prince Charles with Sir Evelyn de Rothschild Evelyn de Rothschild - Wikipedia

In the picture, Sir Evelyn is stabbing his finger into Prince Charles' chest in order to emphasise a point he was making. The point of this picture is that there is a strict protocol with royalty that you are never allowed to touch them unless they permit it. It says a lot, therefore, that Sir Evelyn felt entitled to stab his finger into Prince Charles' chest, which probably reveals where the real power lies. I only wish I had the picture as I would have posted it.
I am astounded at the people on here who seem to be 'Royalists'. These people are parasites. There is no other word for them. An archaic institution that is corrupt to the core. Like all the western governments of the world they are complicit in hoarding wealth and using a system to keep people in fear and poverty. The common people are their plaything. They lack everything that a human being should be. Quite frankly it's sickening.
Fascinating stuff about bloodlines, supernovas, etc, completion of cycles.
Sign of struggle out of sequence with pre-ordained
activities of Royal Blood Lines.

One wonders what struggles are ahead between the Queen, Charles and William. Of course this is heresy, but, at least from "the Crown," Charles and his mother seemed to have had some tense times over the years. Charles does not seem as popular as William, especially since he married Kate and had a family. However, it seems that the Queen is a traditionalist, Charles has been waiting his whole life to be King, and I don't think that the Queen would disrupt the line of succession like that.
There's a thread about bloodlines from 2013:
Bloodline Trails
Wow, unbelievable is right, what a brave woman. Thanks for posting, this is the first time I have watched anything concerning the royal family. This thread is enlightening to say the least. Philip wasn't that bad, he had a heart. Honoring his mothersthe royals wishes to be buried in mount olive. Princessking? Alice in Buckingham Palace in her nun outfit smoking woodbines, brilliant. This thread has been an eye opener. Thanks everyone
I have a very limited knowledge of the royals. Last time I payed much attention on them was when Diana died. I didn't even know Philip was the queens husband - like wouldn't he be king?
Anyway, I liked the video as it was intriguing from the start... And she was deaf too? It almost seems too fanciful.
Top Bottom