The rest of CrowGate
Fri May 3, 2019 14:47

How to remove the Windsors From Their Claim to the Throne

What would happen to the Windsors if they were NOT legitimate? Do the DNA their actual heritage will be revealed and much more.
However, there is even a further complication as to their being legitimate since it is becoming common knowledge that Prince Albert was illegitimate son of Leopald the brother of the husband of Albert's mother. So all lineage born from Albert would NOT be eligible for the Throne.
There is another catch which involves reports that Queen Victoria's first marriage, Yes, according to reports Lord John Elphinstone was Victoria's first husband. She married him by proxy at first due to Victoria's mother being convinced by John Conroy to foil the marriage.
King William IV very much approved of Lord John Ellphinstone even though he was twelve years older than Victoria. This is evidenced by Wiliiam IV granting Lord Elphinstone, the Lord in waiting to William IV and approved of even having a beautiful wedding for the couple. See:

No, the picture does not show Albert and Victoria this is of Victoria and Lord John Elphinstone. Notice the hair line the shape of the face the age difference and so on. And Victoria wearing a beautiful decorative dress. Then compare that wedding image to the second wedding, when Victoria was obviously older and wearing a totally different wedding dress, in her wedding to Albert.
Look at Albert's hairline, younger appearance than the previous wedding.
Then along came Victoria's first born. But this marriage meant Conroy no longer had a chance to control Victoria and which thus meant the lose of the power of the throne.
When John Conroy and Victoria's mother gained the assistance of the Prime Minister at the time, Lord John Elphinstone was sent to India. Then they proceeded to mandate the marriage to Albert. Since who else would marry someone in Victoria's position who already has a child? The only person who would have Victoria was Albert.

This depiction shows the young girl paying attention not to Albert but the dog, who according to official history was supposed to be her father. Wouldn't a young child pay attention to her parent or on the lap and look at Alberts expression? And the girl is old enough to stand siill long enough for the painter to do his work? Yet the image is supposed to be from 1841? Any parent knows that does not happen when a child is maybe one year old. Victoria's daughter was supposedly born in November 21 1840 the year she married Albert she would NOT be yet capable of standing there for any length of time, Let alone show the maturity the girl has reached in that picture.
Here it shows the difference between Princess Royal Victoria and her siblings.

Victoria most likely did not know if Lord John Elphinstone was even alive since he was ordered off to India. When William IV died Elphinstone no longer had anyone in the position to not only know what was going on, but to be of help to him.
Now what you need to know is what led up to this in Victoria's life and why particularly John Conroy thought he should get by with it. Conroy was after power via Victoria. He was reportedly very ambitious. And history seems to bear that out. Even before Victoria was born her father, Edward Duke of Kent, was assigned to have Military Officer John Conroy as his Equerry which meant Conroy was in charge of taking care of the horses, and later he was Comptroller of the Duke of Kent finances. When Victoria's mother married Duke of Kent a comptroller was needed to handle finances for the new household. Conroy made sure he had the job. However, about the time Victoria was born the Duke of Kent found out what was really going on with his finances.
For some reason Edward the Duke of Kent went to Sidmouth, England. And the so called explanation of his death was he could not breath, asphyxiation? Maybe it was pneumonia? What should be asked is why was he on the opposite side of Southern England than London? What was the purpose of the long trip? And remember Conroy took care of the horses so therefore most likely was along for the trip. Oh yes, another point was Conroy tried to get Victoria's father to make him guardian of Victoria!
To make a long story short Duke of Kent was so heavily in debt, it took Victoria well into her time as Queen to pay off the Duke's so called Debts. And also keep in mind that Conroy was Comptroller, the one in charge of making sure the books were balanced?
One more point that should be taken into consideration that the Duke's father George III ended up 'poisoned' just six days after Victoria's father died? What might also be of interest George IV who seems to have been so upset about something, history has it King George IV commited suicide? What was really going on?
Also look into the deaths of the Duke's other siblings children!
And remember that Queen Victoria ended up with her father's debts. She must have looked into the situation and found good reason to simply pay Conroy to leave. Which would hopefully mitigate the difficulties with her mother letting Conroy go. She may have been able to determine that Elphinstone was still alive, however at that point there was no way of knowing where Elphinstone was. So just pay Conroy to keep his silence and to get him gone. By the way Conroy died heavily in debt. Do we see a pattern?
With Albert being illegitimate any lineage of Albert's children would NOT be eligible for the throne. Windsor's claim heritage of Albert, therefore they are illegitimate. Any illegitimate line for generations can not claim the Throne. There is only one legitimate child of Victoria. That child is Princess Royal Empress Victoria or as the family called her 'Vicky.'

Empress Victoria's child Waldemar was called dead to save the lineage and wisked off to America with Uncle Harold as his guardian. Because the other children were being ruined by the pedophilia bunch Bismark used as a way to take over Germany and do what is now called
All of the United Kingdom and world for that matter has paid dearly for what has been called 'Top Secret.' This is just an example.
Don't you agree that not only the above example should be taken into consideration.

But also the following:
The Queen Found Guilty
Posted on September 16, 2018 by David Robinson

Judge Anna von Reitz
It has been established by incontrovertible evidence in the matter of Paul Anthony Hill [Mu-ad Dibh] v. Elizabeth II “Regina”, that the Queen violated her Coronation Oath three days after she accepted it, and that she and her Government have functioned in constructive fraud since June 6, 1953.

There is additional evidence that both the Queen’s Father and Grandfather did the same.

The people of the British Isles are owed a Christian Monarch occupying the throne of The United Kingdom. The entire Coronation process is designed to guarantee the acceptance of that role and responsibility—- and to assure the people of their Queen’s accountability to Christian law and principles.

One must also remember that the Queen is the titular head of the Church of England, an additional Office that she is obligated to serve in Good Faith and Honor.

Instead, three days after her Coronation, Elizabeth II abdicated the Christian throne and occupied the pagan “Chair of the Estates” instead.

The immediate impact of this is the unlawful conversion from Public Law to private corporate law being practiced throughout the realm in otherwise Public Courts, the use of “legal” rather than “lawful” presumptions in these courts, unlawful conversion of private property into public property, enslavement and press-ganging of living men by a process of personage and impersonation, and all the other evils we have witnessed.

This additionally means that the entire British Government has been functioning as a criminal organization since the 1870’s, and this has implications for the entire world — not just the British Territorial United States.

When we started our investigations we naturally thought that this whole problem was endemic to the United States, but soon found that it had proliferated worldwide and had its factual modern genesis during the reign of Queen Victoria.

Exactly how and by whom this continued to be “pulled off” despite all the protections and provisions against it was not immediately apparent, but the Queen’s abdication of the lawful and Christian throne provides the answer.

She willfully converted the mechanisms of her Government and the Judicial System to the service of the pagan “god” Baal, and adopted the Talmud as the form of “law” to be used. Like her own abdication, these “unstated” provisions were implemented with no Notice given to anyone in a position to object.

This Gross Breach of Trust and the profound violation of The Rule of Law which is involved must be addressed by Parliament and by the United Nations and by the Geneva and Hague Conventions. Mr. Trump, please take note.

England has had no Queen since 1953 and all actions undertaken since then are in doubt, as are the actions and authorities of her predecessors back to the 1860’s.

The secretive abdication of the Christian throne and occupation of the pagan Chair of the Estates is an act of purposeful, criminal fraud against the people of England, Scotland, Ireland, Wales, the British Territories and the Commonwealths worldwide– including the British Territorial United States.

Elizabeth II’s secret abdication is the single most virulent source of the criminality which has infested government services corporations worldwide, created the Matrix of Corporate Feudalism, and reduced governance to the level of modern day Robber Barons.

We have the right, the responsibility, and the power to require an end to this circumstance—-bankers, kings, and queens be damned.

Don't you agree that the rightful Monarch should be called upon to set straight the TRUE focus of the Church of England?

Don't you agree that there should be a Monarch true to the Oath of the Monarchy?

Don't you agree that someone who abdicated the Throne three days after her Coronation should not be even called Queen?

The people of the United Kingdom and
The Estate of Parliament

The House of Stuart
hereby re-establishes their right to the Monarchy for the good of the people and the acknowledgement of the right of the heir of King David as ordained by God. It is time that the people take priority over political, economic or Bankers interests.
When the House of Stuart, King James VII/ II was forced out in 1688 under threat of life and limb, the covenant blessings of King David went with him. The Monarchy was just usurped to guarantee usury would be brought in for certain ones to prosper at the expense of the people. Therefore knowing this and with Parliament's wisdom and fear of God they declared King James to have merely vacated the throne and thus leaving the Monarchy open for King James or his descendant heir to sit on the throne once again so the glory and grace of God would once again be with Great Britain.
Great Great Great Grandmother Queen Victoria would most likely fully agree. This Decree is mandatory particularly at this poit due to Elizabeth II as legally abdicated therefore considered legally deceased and Parliament must take appropriate action for the sake of Great Britain, the United Kingdom and all of the World for that matter.

We need honest Elections!
Do you really think that you will get honest elections with troops in the streets when terr--istic so-called threats and machine gun wielding constables present? What is needed is stability, with the help of God, the House of David can provide that.

The Descendant Heir with the Covenant Blessing Of the House of David/ House of Stuart
Patricia JHS


Click here to receive daily updates