Lease this WebApp and get rid of the ads.
Even the Catholic NAME has been USED to Creat Division
Mon Jul 24, 2017 08:58
72.173.221.44

"Ann Hyde converted to Catholicism after she became pregnant by James VII and II. prior to his being crowned." Is the official story but let's look into more details about the so called Catholic name placed on the Stuart name.

We can find out more by looking further.
wikipedia version: Anne Hyde (12 March 1637 – 31 March 1671)was raised, was Duchess of York and of Albany as the first wife of the future King James II of England. Originally an Anglican, she converted to Catholicism soon after her marriage to James, really? The two first met in the Netherlands while Anne was living in the household of James' sister Mary. James and Anne had eight children, but six died in early childhood. The two who survived to adulthood were Lady Mary, who succeeded her father after his deposition during the Glorious Revolution of 1688, and Lady Anne, who succeeded her brother-in-law and became the first monarch of Great Britain. Both of whom were definately Protestant. So we are supposed to believe that Catholics raise Protestant children?

Both Mary and Anne were protestant is the admission of the historians? Then since supposedly James VII and II was Catholic and Anne converted to Catholic how is it they raised two 'Protestant daughters? The answer they, were NOT Catholic.
Even if a monarch was Catholic it was NOT forbidden until 1701. James the VII and II died in 1701 so how much does that have to do with him? Or are we talking Ex Post Facto Laws?

BTW Ex Post Facto laws are against the English/Great Britain Laws.

And consider this: James VII and II died of a brain haemorrhage (what was the real cause?) on 16 September 1701 at Saint-Germain-en-Laye James's heart was placed in a silver-gilt locket and given to the convent at Chaillot, and his brain was placed in a lead casket and given to the Scots College in Paris. His entrails were placed in two gilt urns and sent to the parish church of Saint-Germain-en-Laye and the English Jesuit college at Saint-Omer, while the flesh from his right arm was given to the English Augustinian nuns of Paris. So the purpose of all of that was what? Does that sound like a way a 'Catholic' would treat another Catholic?

William and Mary, both Protestants, became king and queen regnant following the Glorious Revolution, which resulted in the adoption of the English Bill of Rights and the deposition of her Roman Catholic father, James II and VII. William became sole ruler upon her death in 1694 the same year Mary died a rather questionable death. Oh and it is reported that Mary had 8 children none of which survived to adulthood.

Mary's sister Queen Anne, out of 17 pregnancies did not produce any surviving children to maturity, and supposedly all 74+ other members of the House of Stuart who were closer to the throne, were 'all' Catholic?. For generations prior to the passing over the House of Stuart, were Protestant.

So why the big push to get a Bohemian on the Throne?

The line of Sophia of Hanover was the most junior among the Stuarts, but consisted of convinced Protestants. Sophia died on 8 June 1714, before the death of Queen Anne on 1 August 1714.

On Queen Anne's death, Sophia's son duly became King George I and started the Hanoverian dynasty in Britain. Now where George was raised is what is interesting, because that area was considered the prime location for satan to center his outreach so to say.


So what happens when the Sophia died before Queen Anne? By 'Law' the throne should go to the next closest Peer Stuart to Monarchy, certainly not the extranious members of the 'lineage.'

What should be done is the DNA on all of those important to the decsion for succesion.

Why the extreme measures to put George I on the throne?
He would go along with Usury and the 'Bank of England'(or should it be said the Bank of Rome?) as had been establish by William III in 1694 and same year Mary II 'died.'


On 9 December, in the midst of the Glorious Revolution, Mary of Modena disguised herself as a laundress and escaped with the infant James to France. Young James was brought up at the Château de Saint-Germain-en-Laye, which Louis XIV had turned over to the exiled James II who would NOT go along with USURY etc..

Louis XIV and his court treated them as ruling monarch . After James Francis Edward Stuart's father's death in 1701, James claimed the English, Scottish and Irish thrones as James III of England and Ireland and James VIII of Scotland, in which he was supported by his Jacobite followers and his cousin Louis XIV of France.

Treaty of Utrecht (1713), Harley and Lord Bolingbroke, Secretary of State, colluded with the French in exiling James later considered the King of the Waters to the Duchy of Lorraine.

James lived at Avignon, then Papal territory. Pope Clement XI offered James the Palazzo del Re[9] in Rome as his residence, which he accepted. Pope Innocent XIII, like his predecessor, showed much support. Thanks to his friend Cardinal Filippo Antonio Gualterio,

He was allowed ****Protestant**** services at Court, and was given land where his Protestant subjects could receive a public burial.

On 3 September 1719, James Francis Edward Stuart married Maria Clementina Sobieska (1702–35), granddaughter of King John III Sobieski of Poland. The wedding was held in the chapel of the Episcopal Palace in Montefiascone, near Viterbo. Maria Clementina's father, James Louis Sobieski, approved her escape, declaring that, as she became engaged to James Francis Edward, she ought to "follow his fortune and his cause".


Now that sounds like a thing a good Catholic
would do right?

Maria Clementina died at the early age of 32 on 18 January 1735. In St. Peter's Basilica in Rome. But her heart was taken to the Chapel she worshiped for years. She like her husband and son Bonnie Prince Charlie were intured at the Basilica in the Vatican. There is some question why the Vatican holds on to their remains or should it be said control of the remains?


Charles Edward Stuart (31 December 1720 – 31 January 1788), nicknamed "Bonnie Prince Charlie" The only legitamate son of James Francis Edward Stuart, because he was so many years at Sea.

The reason efforts are made to say Henry the half brother of Charlie. 'Looked' so much like Charlie was because they did not look, or act alike. Is that because the Vatican wanted to make it appear Charlie and Henry were actually full brothers?

For example the end or death of James Francis Edward Stuart was at the Basilica Chapel where Henry the son of Maria his wife was Archbishop of the Basilica. And so did Bonnie Prince Charlie the legitimate son of James Francis Edward Stuart's, life would end at the Basilica also.

Would it be interesting to do an autopsy analysis of cause of death?

It just so happens that Bonnie Prince Charlie was at the Vatican to try to pay back a loan Ben Franklin took out (against the wish of the Continental Congress) and since the loan was taken out with England, going back to London etc. was not an option for Bonnie Prince Charlie.

France refused to get in the middle (or was it due to the Jay Treaty?). Left Charlie no choice but to try to go to the Vatican to get the loan paid back. This payback was so important the future of the 'Great American Experiment of FREEDOM' was at stake. So he ended up just like his Father and Mother buried at the Vatican Basilica.

Was that to, once again make the Stuarts look like they were Catholic or was there something to hide?

Now what has happened while the Legislation was in place to forbid Catholics to have anything to do with the Throne:

Elizabeth married a Nazi Youth Camp Catholic first cousin Philip and took a special ceremony to be loyal to the Catholic cause?

Whose son Charles married a Catholic Camilla whose ancestors go back to the Jack the Ripper murders??

Charles' son William (if he is his son?) married a Catholic who is a he but is called she? If you question this check out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dl2z7V9UxV8

Who supposedly gave birth to two
children and is expecting a third?

Really isn't it time for some DNA study?

So 'Official' history calls the ones who were NOT Catholic, Catholic?

And the ones who are Catholic parade around like they are not what they are? Making laws that you can not say anything bad about them?

Oh yes this is a mixed up world.


http://disc.yourwebapps.com/discussion.cgi?disc=149495;article=157906;title=APFN

scantv77
Parliament WHERE have you been?
Tue Jul 18, 2017 19:02
184.63.217.186

Shouldn't it be three strikes your OUT!!!

You do NOT OWE ANY Allegiance to Elizabeth, or are you scared of her? Does she hold particular information about you that can not come out? What are the reasons you have ignored the following?

http://presscore.ca/the-law-for-ever-forfeits-the-uk-scotland-ireland-and-canadian-monarchy

Section VI. The Beginning of the Communion Service of the coronation transcript clearly proves Elizabeth II did “hold Communion with the Church of Rome” and did “professe the Catholic Faith”, by declaring “And I believe one Catholic and Apostolic Church“, in violation of the law.
Section X. The Investiture per annulum, et per sceptrum et baculum, also provides irrefutable proof that Elizabeth II is “made for ever [incapable] to inherit possess or enjoy the Crown and Government of this Realm and Ireland and the Dominions thereunto belonging or any part of the same or to ha ve use or exercise any regal Power Authority or Jurisdiction within the same And in all and every such Case and Cases the People of these Realms shall be and are thereby absolved of their Allegiance“. The Archbishop put a ring “set a sapphire and upon it a ruby cross” on the fourth finger of Elizabeth II’s right hand, and said,
“Receive the Ring of kingly dignity, and the seal of Catholic Faith:”
Elizabeth II did accept the seal of the Catholic Faith ring, a ring that signifies her communion with the Catholic Faith, in violation of the law. Elizabeth II is barred, by law, from becoming, serving or defending the Catholic Faith. By accepting the seal of Catholic Faith ring Elizabeth II, is by law, “made for ever [incapable] to inherit possess or enjoy the Crown and Government of this Realm and Ireland and the Dominions thereunto belonging or any part of the same or to have use or exercise any regall Power Authority or Jurisdiction within the same And in all and every such Case and Cases the People of these Realms shall be and are thereby absolved of their Allegiance“.
The law also forbids any Church of England monarch from being married in a Catholic Faith Church. Her coronation and marriage to her second cousin, Catholic Hitler Youth Schooled Philip Battenberg were both held in the Catholic Faith professing Westminster Abbey, which is part of the Order of Saint Benedict, a Roman Catholic religious order.

“excluded and are by that Act made for ever [incapable] to inherit possess or enjoy the Crown and Government of this Realm and Ireland and the Dominions thereunto belonging or any part of the same or to have use or exercise any regall Power Authority or Jurisdiction within the same And in all and every such Case and Cases the People of these Realms shall be and are thereby absolved of their Allegiance.”

When meeting with the Pope no matter which Pope it may be, if you are Protestant you MUSt wear BLACK.
If you are Catholic you can wear colorful clothing.

This is clearly NOT BLACK.

Elizabeth is NOT wearing BLACK, though she did wear BLACK when meeting the Pope in Public.

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/2MKSRs9hfOs/hqdefault.jpg

http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/ukpope11.jpg

http://www.catholicireland.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Pope-Francis-and-Queen-Elizabeth.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Hw-yQLTJoHo/TIEvnx29xrI/AAAAAAAAAG4/-6P7F9iiNXA/s1600/queen-elizabeth-pope-jp.jpg

After my book came out it looks as though Pope Francis has changed the dress code. OR was it Benedist?


http://www3.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Holiness+Pope+Benedict+XVI+Pays+State+Visit+1bPWrxzKv1gx.jpg

Now reports have come out that when Elizabeth met with Pope Benedict she arranged with him for the Priests in the 'Church of England' to maintain the cover up of the pedophiles?
IF it were true as Bishop Charles J Scicluna claims when testifying in Geneva WHY the secrecy when Pope Benedict met with Elizabeth in Scotland?
"Bishop Charles J. Scicluna, the Vatican’s former chief prosecutor on sex crimes, told the U.N. committee, “It is not a policy of the Holy See to encourage cover-ups. This is against the truth.” Yet the Vatican’s efforts to cast the scandal as history and claiming that the church now gets it was undercut by contradictory signals from the church. As Scicluna was testifying in Geneva, Pope Francis was celebrating Mass and meeting privately in Rome with Cardinal Roger M. Mahony, the disgraced former archbishop of Los Angeles who was publicly accused of protecting abusive priests. -- - -
The church must open its archives to shatter the code of silence that shrouded this shameful scandal in secrecy and continues to impede truth and justice."

Lauren Carasik is a clinical professor of law and the director of the international human rights clinic at the Western New England University School of Law.
http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/2/the-vatican-stillprotectspedophilepriests.html

Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor
Titles - Supreme Governor of the Church of England, Defender of the Faith, Head of the Commonwealth. (the question is what faith? Satanic?)
Territory – Queen of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as well as being the constitutional monarch of 16 Commonwealth states, including Australia, Canada and New Zealand.
Fo:llowers – the Queen is the titular head of the world's 76 million Anglicans.


To top of the above, take a look at this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dl2z7V9UxV8



Patricia JHS
Direct Heir of the House of Stuart





  • Click here to receive daily updates