Liliea
Dagobah Resident
It's true, another story...Thanks for another one of these info-filled sessions that continue to complete the mosaic,
Session 5 September 1998
- Thread starter Laura
- Start date
It's true, another story...Thanks for another one of these info-filled sessions that continue to complete the mosaic,
Thank you for the session.
This reminds me of the movie The Bourne Ultimatum when the monitoring of phone conversations detects the key phrase black briar and causes deployment of assassins.
Thank you for this interesting session.
I had the following exchange with Laura concerning what might have been the "struggle out of sequence":Thankyou so much for posting these missing sessions!
Q: (A) But, if it already occurred, then this means that the instantaneous effects have already been felt, even if it was lesser than the optical effects. It must have been recorded by anomalous changes in genes? (L) Is that true?
A: Close.
Q: (L) So what, in the records, should we be looking for?
A: Sign of struggle out of sequence with pre-ordained activities of Royal Blood Lines.
Q: (L) In other words, the usurpation of the blood lines?
Now I wonder what event was this? Something like the Norman Conquest of England where one king conquers another land and takes it's throne? Any ideas?
12 April 2021
MJF said:
I note that the Duke of Somerset was one of those involved with facilitating the 1689 Glorious Revolution. I really think that was a huge moment in world history since it paved the way for getting rid of the Stuarts and allowed for the Hanoverians to take over the British throne through their descent from Mary Stuart, King Charles I's sister. As another poster noted, Queen Anne, the last Stuart monarch, held up the PTB forces (money power) during her reign but once she died there was no holding them back. The rest is history and has led to the world we have today. When I was taught history here in England, the Stuarts always had a bad name as if their reigns were an embarrassment.
12 April 2021
Laura said:
I actually think that the "Glorious Revolution" was the interruption of royal bloodlines the Cs mentioned.
I see that you are from England. I don't know how much British history you were taught at school. I say this because I have five children who went through the current educational system that has prevailed in England in recent years. From what I could see, they learned precious little English history. The subjects they covered for history GCSE, for example, included the rise of the Nazis in Germany and the American Wild West. Interesting subjects I would agree but not British history.
In case you are not familiar with the Stuart dynasty and why Laura and I think they are good candidates for the "struggle out of sequence" is that the 17th century in England saw a tumultuous battle between the Stuart Kings of England and the English gentry whose power base was the House of Commons. The Stuart Kings believed in the concept of the "divine right of kings" and therefore behaved as absolute monarchs. This approach would lead to the English Civil War of the 1640's which pitched the forces of King Charles I against those of Parliament who would eventually be led to victory by Oliver Cromwell. King Charles lost his head, his son Charles II was forced into exile after losing the Battle of Worcester during the short lived Second English Civil War, and Cromwell then ruled Britain as the 'Lord Protector', in the process becoming a military dictator who would abolish the Parliament that had empowered him, ruling instead through the infamous Major Generals.
On Cromwell's death, Charles II was invited back to reclaim his throne and resume royal rule (ref. "the pre-ordained activities of Royal Blood Lines"). However, he died without an heir (he had lots of illegitimate children, including my ancestor the Duke of Lennox, but no legitimate ones). As a result the throne passed to his brother, James II. There was one major problem with James though and that was prior to coming to the throne, he had converted to his French mother's religion, Roman Catholicism. This was at a time when the ruling establishment in England was almost entirely Protestant and deeply distrustful of a Catholic king. James had two daughters, Mary and Anne but no son when he ascended the throne. However, not long after he became king, his wife gave birth to a son and heir who would also be named James. This was too much for some Members of Parliament who, dreading the prospect of a Catholic succession, went over to the Netherlands and implored Prince William of Orange, who was married to James's daughter Mary, to invade England and seize the throne from James. This happened in 1689 in an episode that is remembered as the 'Glorious Revolution' when William at the head of large Dutch army landed in England and marched on London. James was forced to abdicate under duress and flee for his life to the Continent taking his wife and baby son with him. One of the reasons James was not able to martial forces to oppose William's invasion was that his top general, John Churchill (the Duke of Blenheim) one of the best military commanders in Europe, betrayed him and sided with William. John Churchill was the direct ancestor of Sir Winston Churchill who, when he came to write his momentous History of the English Speaking Peoples, felt he had no other choice than to view his ancestor as a traitor to his king.
However, the ascension of William III to the throne alongside his wife Mary Stuart (Mary II), was also accompanied by far reaching constitutional changes that saw the monarch becoming a constitutional monarch who ruled only through and by the consent of Parliament. The Bill of Right that ushered in this new constitutional arrangement was effectively the ultimate triumph of the gentry and the House of Commons. In fairness, Parliamentary consent to William's accession to the throne was a close run thing with the bill enacting these measures passing by narrow majorities in both the House of Commons and the Lords, at a time when Dutch troops surrounded Parliament and were to all intents and purposes holding a gun to the members' and lords' heads. So when next time you hear that England has not been invaded since the Normans in 1066 (which ironically brought my own family into the country
since my ancestor fought at the battle alongside his cousin William Duke of Normandy), you now know this is not true since we were invaded by a Dutch army in 1689, which then put their own prince on the throne. This was not quite the end of James II though since he rallied an army to his colours in Ireland where Irish Catholics still viewed him as their rightful king. The matter was decided at the Battle of the Boyne when William's forces roundly defeated those of James, forcing him to flee into exile in France (at Paris St Germaine) where he would live out the rest of his days (another ancestor or kinsman of mine who had ridden at James's side at the Boyne would join him in exile there).
This is not the end of the story by any means since William and Mary died without issue, leading to Mary's younger sister Anne Stuart ascending the throne. There was one problem though. Under the rights of primogeniture, her Catholic younger brother James Stuart should have taken the throne instead of her. However, his route to the throne was blocked by the Act of Settlement of 1701, which barred Catholics from becoming the monarch. The Act named Anne's successor as the distantly related, but Protestant, the Electress Sophia of Hanover, but she would die two months before Anne in August 1714, making Anne's heir presumptive Sophia's eldest son, George of Hanover. He would ascend the throne as George I of Great Britain in August 1714. This was too much for some of the Stuart supporters in Scotland who preferred a Scottish king to rule over them than a German (James II of England having also been James VII of Scotland). Called 'Jacobites', they rose up in August 1715 in support of James, quickly rallying an army together that would be joined by various English supporters of James. Although the uprising was successful in northern Scotland initially, by the time James landed in Scotland in December 1716 the Jacobite cause was all but lost. Thus, in February 1717, James had to bid farewell to Scotland and flee back to France. He would make a second belated attempt to take the British throne in 1719, but despite Spanish support, he was again defeated at the Battle of Glenshiel. The Stuarts were never a lucky bunch!
James would henceforth be known as the 'Old Pretender' and the Stuart cause would subsequently be taken forward by his son Charles Stuart, who became known as the 'Young Pretender'. In August 1745, Charles arrived in Scotland to command a Highland Scottish army that had risen in support of him against Hanoverian rule. Having secured control of Scotland, Charles's army would march on northern England and reach as far as Derby by December 1745, whereupon Charles and his Jacobite commanders lost their nerve and retreated back to Scotland. With his army's calamitous defeat at Culloden Moor in April 1716, the rebellion ended and Charles was forced to flee back to France. He would eventually live out his days in Rome where he died in 1788 (but not before the American revolutionaries had offered him the throne of North America, which he politely declined). This brought the Jacobite cause to an end and the Hanoverian dynasty continues to reign through Charles III to this day.
One can only muse as to how history may have turned out if the Stuarts had retaken the throne. Would the American Revolution have occurred? Given their close ties to France and Spain, would the British Empire have evolved as it did. Would the Stuart kings have prevented the privately owned Bank of England from being created and through it the rise of the Rothschild banking dynasty in England. Who knows. Given how things turned out though, I hope you can see why Laura and I viewed these events as the "struggle out of sequence" leading to the usurpation of the Stuart kingly bloodline.
Since proposing this theory, I have also considered the other period of dynastic conflict in England, which also led to a protracted civil war that we now know as the 'Wars of the Roses'. This conflict finally came to an end when Richard III, the last Plantagenet king, lost the Battle of Bosworth Field in 1485 to his Lancastrian rival Henry Tudor, who became Henry VII and the first king of the Tudor dynasty - for more see Alton Towers, Sir Francis Bacon and the Rosicrucians
You could argue that there was no struggle out of sequence involved here since the Tudors simply replaced the Plantagenets. However, new evidence has recently come to light which may rebut this view. Richard III, as Duke of York, had assumed the throne on the death of his brother Edward IV. However, Edward IV had died leaving two sons, Edward V and his younger brother Richard. Indeed, the uncrowned Edward V is still included in the official list of English kings. Richard III as their uncle and guardian had both the young princes incarcerated in the Tower of London whilst he tried to have them declared illegitimate by episcopal authority so as to bolster his own claim to the throne over that of his nephew Edward. History records that the two young princes in the Tower just disappeared from sight and most historians have concluded they were killed, with Richard III viewed as the main murder suspect. New evidence has now come to light though that the princes may have survived and been smuggled out of the Tower (by Henry and Thomas Percy amongst others) and taken over to the Continent where they enjoyed the protection of their aunt, the formidable and well connected Margaret, Duchess of Burgundy. Both princes would subsequently try to retake the throne and restore the Plantagenet dynasty through the guises of Perkin Warbeck and Lambert Simnel, who were the figureheads of two unsuccessful rebellions in England during the reign of Henry VII.
Rather than relate all the new evidence here, I am attaching instead an article that I wrote in which the claim that the Princes in the Tower did survive is set out in great detail. It is worth noting here that if the Plantagenet line could have continued under either King Edward or Prince Richard, there may have been no Henry VIII and thus no English Reformation and there would have been no Elizabeth I and with her the defeat of the Spanish Armada and the subsequent rise of the British Empire. Food for thought.
Hence, I present two possible choices for the "struggle out of sequence", which is meant to have occurred at the time when the star that we are supposed to see in the near future go super nova actually went super nova (since the light takes hundreds of years to reach us).
So, take your pick.
In case you are not familiar with the Stuart dynasty and why Laura and I think they are good candidates for the "struggle out of sequence" is that the 17th century in England saw a tumultuous battle between the Stuart Kings of England and the English gentry whose power base was the House of Commons. The Stuart Kings believed in the concept of the "divine right of kings" and therefore behaved as absolute monarchs. This approach would lead to the English Civil War of the 1640's which pitched the forces of King Charles I against those of Parliament who would eventually be led to victory by Oliver Cromwell. King Charles lost his head, his son Charles II was forced into exile after losing the Battle of Worcester during the short lived Second English Civil War, and Cromwell then ruled Britain as the 'Lord Protector', in the process becoming a military dictator who would abolish the Parliament that had empowered him, ruling instead through the infamous Major Generals.
On Cromwell's death, Charles II was invited back to reclaim his throne and resume royal rule (ref. "the pre-ordained activities of Royal Blood Lines"). However, he died without an heir (he had lots of illegitimate children, including my ancestor the Duke of Lennox, but no legitimate ones). As a result the throne passed to his brother, James II. There was one major problem with James though and that was prior to coming to the throne, he had converted to his French mother's religion, Roman Catholicism. This was at a time when the ruling establishment in England was almost entirely Protestant and deeply distrustful of a Catholic king. James had two daughters, Mary and Anne but no son when he ascended the throne. However, not long after he became king, his wife gave birth to a son and heir who would also be named James. This was too much for some Members of Parliament who, dreading the prospect of a Catholic succession, went over to the Netherlands and implored Prince William of Orange, who was married to James's daughter Mary, to invade England and seize the throne from James. This happened in 1689 in an episode that is remembered as the 'Glorious Revolution' when William at the head of large Dutch army landed in England and marched on London. James was forced to abdicate under duress and flee for his life to the Continent taking his wife and baby son with him. One of the reasons James was not able to martial forces to oppose William's invasion was that his top general, John Churchill (the Duke of Blenheim) one of the best military commanders in Europe, betrayed him and sided with William. John Churchill was the direct ancestor of Sir Winston Churchill who, when he came to write his momentous History of the English Speaking Peoples, felt he had no other choice than to view his ancestor as a traitor to his king.
However, the ascension of William III to the throne alongside his wife Mary Stuart (Mary II), was also accompanied by far reaching constitutional changes that saw the monarch becoming a constitutional monarch who ruled only through and by the consent of Parliament. The Bill of Right that ushered in this new constitutional arrangement was effectively the ultimate triumph of the gentry and the House of Commons. In fairness, Parliamentary consent to William's accession to the throne was a close run thing with the bill enacting these measures passing by narrow majorities in both the House of Commons and the Lords, at a time when Dutch troops surrounded Parliament and were to all intents and purposes holding a gun to the members' and lords' heads. So when next time you hear that England has not been invaded since the Normans in 1066 (which ironically brought my own family into the country
since my ancestor fought at the battle alongside his cousin William Duke of Normandy), you now know this is not true since we were invaded by a Dutch army in 1689, which then put their own prince on the throne. This was not quite the end of James II though since he rallied an army to his colours in Ireland where Irish Catholics still viewed him as their rightful king. The matter was decided at the Battle of the Boyne when William's forces roundly defeated those of James, forcing him to flee into exile in France (at Paris St Germaine) where he would live out the rest of his days (another ancestor or kinsman of mine who had ridden at James's side at the Boyne would join him in exile there).This is not the end of the story by any means since William and Mary died without issue, leading to Mary's younger sister Anne Stuart ascending the throne. There was one problem though. Under the rights of primogeniture, her Catholic younger brother James Stuart should have taken the throne instead of her. However, his route to the throne was blocked by the Act of Settlement of 1701, which barred Catholics from becoming the monarch. The Act named Anne's successor as the distantly related, but Protestant, the Electress Sophia of Hanover, but she would die two months before Anne in August 1714, making Anne's heir presumptive Sophia's eldest son, George of Hanover. He would ascend the throne as George I of Great Britain in August 1714. This was too much for some of the Stuart supporters in Scotland who preferred a Scottish king to rule over them than a German (James II of England having also been James VII of Scotland). Called 'Jacobites', they rose up in August 1715 in support of James, quickly rallying an army together that would be joined by various English supporters of James. Although the uprising was successful in northern Scotland initially, by the time James landed in Scotland in December 1716 the Jacobite cause was all but lost. Thus, in February 1717, James had to bid farewell to Scotland and flee back to France. He would make a second belated attempt to take the British throne in 1719, but despite Spanish support, he was again defeated at the Battle of Glenshiel. The Stuarts were never a lucky bunch!
James would henceforth be known as the 'Old Pretender' and the Stuart cause would subsequently be taken forward by his son Charles Stuart, who became known as the 'Young Pretender'. In August 1745, Charles arrived in Scotland to command a Highland Scottish army that had risen in support of him against Hanoverian rule. Having secured control of Scotland, Charles's army would march on northern England and reach as far as Derby by December 1745, whereupon Charles and his Jacobite commanders lost their nerve and retreated back to Scotland. With his army's calamitous defeat at Culloden Moor in April 1716, the rebellion ended and Charles was forced to flee back to France. He would eventually live out his days in Rome where he died in 1788 (but not before the American revolutionaries had offered him the throne of North America, which he politely declined). This brought the Jacobite cause to an end and the Hanoverian dynasty continues to reign through Charles III to this day.
One can only muse as to how history may have turned out if the Stuarts had retaken the throne. Would the American Revolution have occurred? Given their close ties to France and Spain, would the British Empire have evolved as it did. Would the Stuart kings have prevented the privately owned Bank of England from being created and through it the rise of the Rothschild banking dynasty in England. Who knows. Given how things turned out though, I hope you can see why Laura and I viewed these events as the "struggle out of sequence" leading to the usurpation of the Stuart kingly bloodline.
Since proposing this theory, I have also considered the other period of dynastic conflict in England, which also led to a protracted civil war that we now know as the 'Wars of the Roses'. This conflict finally came to an end when Richard III, the last Plantagenet king, lost the Battle of Bosworth Field in 1485 to his Lancastrian rival Henry Tudor, who became Henry VII and the first king of the Tudor dynasty - for more see Alton Towers, Sir Francis Bacon and the Rosicrucians
You could argue that there was no struggle out of sequence involved here since the Tudors simply replaced the Plantagenets. However, new evidence has recently come to light which may rebut this view. Richard III, as Duke of York, had assumed the throne on the death of his brother Edward IV. However, Edward IV had died leaving two sons, Edward V and his younger brother Richard. Indeed, the uncrowned Edward V is still included in the official list of English kings. Richard III as their uncle and guardian had both the young princes incarcerated in the Tower of London whilst he tried to have them declared illegitimate by episcopal authority so as to bolster his own claim to the throne over that of his nephew Edward. History records that the two young princes in the Tower just disappeared from sight and most historians have concluded they were killed, with Richard III viewed as the main murder suspect. New evidence has now come to light though that the princes may have survived and been smuggled out of the Tower (by Henry and Thomas Percy amongst others) and taken over to the Continent where they enjoyed the protection of their aunt, the formidable and well connected Margaret, Duchess of Burgundy. Both princes would subsequently try to retake the throne and restore the Plantagenet dynasty through the guises of Perkin Warbeck and Lambert Simnel, who were the figureheads of two unsuccessful rebellions in England during the reign of Henry VII.
Rather than relate all the new evidence here, I am attaching instead an article that I wrote in which the claim that the Princes in the Tower did survive is set out in great detail. It is worth noting here that if the Plantagenet line could have continued under either King Edward or Prince Richard, there may have been no Henry VIII and thus no English Reformation and there would have been no Elizabeth I and with her the defeat of the Spanish Armada and the subsequent rise of the British Empire. Food for thought.
Hence, I present two possible choices for the "struggle out of sequence", which is meant to have occurred at the time when the star that we are supposed to see in the near future go super nova actually went super nova (since the light takes hundreds of years to reach us).
So, take your pick.
Trending content
-
Thread 'Coronavirus Pandemic: Apocalypse Now! Or exaggerated scare story?'
- wanderingthomas
Replies: 29K -
-
