-@TH3WH17ERABB17- -Q- Questions ---SHALL WE PLAY A GAME ONCE MORE?--- -Part- --41--

a reply to: MetalThunder

Good idea on making a list. Gonna take awhile.

From your article link, the author: Sarah N. Lynch. Lynch is a common name used by C-eye-A & the movies.

Article mentions David Laufman, an attorney who previously served as chief of the department's counterintelligence section.

The usual suspects...

Q2381: (partial)
Peter Strzok, Deputy Assistant Director of Counterintelligence – FIRED
Lisa Page, Office of General Counsel – FIRED/FORCED
Mike Kortan, Assistant Director for Public Affairs – FIRED
Josh Campbell, Special Assistant to Comey – FIRED
David Laufman, Chief of the Justice Department’s Counterintelligence and Export Control Section [NAT SEC - HRC email invest] - FIRED/FORCE

Laufman: Q2070, 2072, 1316.

a reply to: Ektar

Glad the Limoncello recipe delivered for you, Ektar!

a reply to: MetalThunder
That was cool. My mother was a McAlister whose lineage links back to the Bruce. I have always wanted to go Scotland!
Dad was a Brown(Browne) from Scotland as well however I believe both to have come to the U.S. by way of Ireland.
There is something sort of "magical" about Scotland.

a reply to: OveRcuRrEnteD

Thanks for the link, ORRED!


I trust you're still keeping archives too - as I'm behind on the the files/videos/linked web pages saves. Trying to ensure I keep up on the basic thread page saves tho.

a reply to: Guyfriday

Guy, you get my 20,000th post!

You're street decodes are looking important.


We may need to "Circle back!", haha.

a reply to: RookQueen

Sounds like your ancestor may have conferred title on my ancestor RockQueen!

"In 1296 William de Fersith appears on the Ragman Rolls submitting to Edward I of England.[1] Sometime after 1306, Osbert, the son of Robert de Forsyth, received a grant for the lands of Sauchie in Stirlingshire from Robert the Bruce. During the Wars of Scottish Independence Osbert distinguished himself at the Battle of Bannockburn and received confirmation of the realm of his lands under the great seal in 1320."


Forsyth motto: Instaurator ruinae (A repairer of ruin)

originally posted by: Guyfriday
a reply to: pheonix358

Charles is automatically made King at the time of death for the Queen. He could still abdicate though.

It is not that automatic, hence Parliament having to act.

What if as an example he is under house arrest for crimes against children?

If he abdicates so do his children as I understand these things.

It is nowhere as simple as common folk like to believe.

P

a reply to: pheonix358

Several posters on t.me are referring to Queen Diana.

This is gonna be great to watch.

Need popcorn and wine, a nice red I think.

P

a reply to: pheonix358

The Accession Council deserves a dig, methinks!

In the United Kingdom, the Accession Council is a ceremonial body which assembles in St James's Palace in London upon the death of a monarch (Demise of the Crown), to make formal proclamation of the accession of the successor to the throne. Under the terms of the Act of Settlement 1701, a new monarch succeeds automatically. The proclamation merely confirms by name the identity of the new monarch and formally announces the new monarch's regnal name.

The council is made up of Privy Councillors, Great Officers of State, members of the House of Lords, the Lord Mayor of the City of London, the aldermen of the City of London, high commissioners of Commonwealth realms, and other civil servants.

Since there are 25 Aldermen for the City of London, this means the Corporation of the City of London has 26 seats in the Accession Council!!!

So, Accession Council members =
5 Great Officers of State link
719 Privy councillors link
820 House of Lords
50 Commonwealth High Commissioners link
? Other civil servants (assume 1 per gov dept?)

Total members of Accession Council = 1600+


Maybe 26 from City of London ain't that much, only 1.6%!

a reply to: pheonix358

One potential spanner in the works is the rumour that the Rothschilds have "Sired" heirs to the British throne for the last hundred years or so.

If the plan requires the removal of the Rothschilds central banking stranglehold on power then... wouldn't it also require the removal of their bloodline from Monarchies (across Europe!!!).


You're right... this could get very interesting!

a reply to: RelSciHistItSufi

And then there are the Succession Rules and they do not cope well in unusual circumstances.

They get used so infrequently that no one alive has any experience in understanding them and after final decisions are made, the records would be sealed and locked away and by now, no one alive even knows where they are.

Are we on a brand new page where we are redefining all of these rules and protocols?

P

But they are usurpers.
They do not belong on the throne in the first place.
Why is it so hard to believe Trump has more Royal lineage than any of the German Saxe-coberg gotha clan?

I had suspicions about Trump's bloodline from his father's side because Freddy C., his father, went to Scotland to choose his bride to sire a son.
The stone of destiny is in Scotland and none of the Windsors we're coronated upon it.
The true King is still out there according to rightful rule
It was the Crown that propped them up.

Diana was sought because she had the closest and most pure bloodline.
It was said there were 3 contenders.
JFK Jr., Trump and Charles.
Charles we all know. The part where he is related to Mohammed shows his bloodline
According to Moslem scripture Mohammed was white haired, blue eyed. So white he was almost albino.
The same with Genghis Khan and Attila the Hun.
Genghis and Attila came from the same tribe. They were descendants of the Scythians. Horsemen warriors.
I suspect but have no proof at all that Mohammed came from the same tribe.
You have to wonder why they went to such great lengths to make them out to be something other than white, but they were white.


But this Q thing uncovered Trump's and jr's lineage.
They are Druze.
They are Kahlooni.

The claim is they are descendants of Jesus Christ.
I do not believe this at all.
I believe they are of King David's lineage through Charlemagne but not Christ.
I am open to it but do not believe it.
A dark period of history exists before Charlemagne.
Literally from Joseph of Arimathea to Charlemagne there is lots of grey and missing history.
But still we get the story today.
Trump and Jr. are Druze. They are of David's lineage as well as Windsor but from different part of the tree .
I believe Trump's marriage to Diana is part of the larger plan to unite most of the world.
I believe Trump always considered Ivanna his wife still to this day.
I believe Trump is the Exchequer. I believe he defeated the usurpers and has the right to rule.
I believe Putin is a descendant of czar Nicholas II.
I believe Diana is the great grandchild of Anastasia Romanoff.
While in exile and hiding in SA she learned 6 languages, some acting skills(the accent becomes more obvious once you begin listening).
And I am not 100% Barron is Trump's son. Something weird and interesting there. Like Trump is there to mentor and protect him.
So imagine Diana as Queen of Russia and more.
And Trump in charge of the world's riches.
And Barron will be king.

How is that for a story?

Do you want to hear a more fanciful story you all believed at one time?
That Lizbet was a legitimate queen with a right to rule. That we all accepted the posers as true royalty.
They are German.
So is history about to correct itself?
Maybe.
Trump did inspect the Guard 2 times in front of Lizbet.
Who I believe to be the 2nd of 2 twins that shared the role and assumed it after 1 died.

The Kahlooni aspect is beyond interesting.
Trump's father is interesting.
1 faction changes their names and puts their children in families to be raised to hide their evil from history.
The other faction does the same with their children to be raised but hidden lineages so they can live and not be assassinated.

On the other hand that could all be wrong...and history only happened in Shakespeare and biblical times and Google testifies to this fact.
You vill eat ze bugs

originally posted by: RelSciHistItSufi
a reply to: pheonix358

One potential spanner in the works is the rumour that the Rothschilds have "Sired" heirs to the British throne for the last hundred years or so.

If the plan requires the removal of the Rothschilds central banking stranglehold on power then... wouldn't it also require the removal of their bloodline from Monarchies (across Europe!!!).


You're right... this could get very interesting!

a reply to: RelSciHistItSufi
Yes it sure does! Isn't that wild? Im gonna go to my ancestry to confirm the linkage
and will let you know what I find! I have a curios question....are you fair/light complected?

a reply to: FlyingFox
Ah, now quite some time ago, at the beginning of all this, there were reports that the Spetsnaz had found 15 (same figure) of children ranging from 7-16 years old, discovered in a 'dumb' I believe who had been trafficked. Two were American and one was French, might be the other way round. They were taken to Russia as almost all of them needed medical help one girl, the eldest I understand, will require surgery because of her injuries.
Sounds t me like the story has been twisted by the Ukrainians, as it is well known the country was/is some sort of 'hub' for this.
Rainbows
Jane

a reply to: RelSciHistItSufi
Maybe because she died in Scotland, which given the current Scotland independence argument rattling again is, besides optics, would knock back the original time table by 24-48 hours because of logistics, compared to if she had died at say Windsor/Sandringham r Buck Palace?
Rainbows
Jane

a reply to: dashen
Circumcision is not an exclusively Jewish 'thing'.

a reply to: angelchemuel

I know.
But specifically requesting a Jewish mohel is nigh unheard of.

a reply to: dashen
Maybe so, but what's the problem with that? I see no issue. Just my view.... even IF it's true that Charles has been circumcised.
Rainbows Jane

Exactly how it goes down. NO, you are not at fault, but she is for not knowing any of this. Those types will come around but you have to find an opening to show them what they are trying hard not to see.

originally posted by: FlyingFox
a reply to: Justoneman

It's pretty much true that people "blame the messenger" or resist change, placing the burden on you.

The thing that came to my mind is yesterday, sharing the Veritas school admin discrimination story with my cousin. She's HEAVILY conflicted here. A Catholic school teacher, who's a liberal bureaucratic type. Very adverse to conflict or critical approaches....and set in her ways. Kept her hillary sign up for about 2 years! I knew the story would "bother her", but it's a big Red Pill for a devout Catholic teacher to swallow. but I sent it anyway. Okeef is the same age as her two sons, so I'm sure she was dismissive...at first.

Anyway, I didn't hear back from her. It's a relevant story, a senior admin type playing head games with little kiddies, just like she does all day, lol. I told her, see they won't hire Christians or older people.... now she can just deal with the conflict in her head.

Is that all my fault?

originally posted by: angelchemuel
a reply to: dashen
Disgraceful!

And we think normally, this is repugnant. Normally, we also think it is too early to criticize someone loved by so many. This is not a normal environment and her death signals a change.


She may have been turning the other way about bad happenings within her own family that involve child trafficking. Brit's will not want her legacy tarnished, but is it safe to say it likely will be?

We may be at the precipice of the truth coming out on White hats removing pedo's from free movement about our nations. We know at least one Royal in England and some in Europe are running with child traffickers and there are people determined to end their reign of holy hell on little children as sex slaves.

I am sad for England and all those of you who loved her. I pray she was the saint you folks had faith in and found strength to pull thru together. I am concerned it may not be the case. I would keep quite unless I had direct proof about the things I suspect here are true. This theory won't go away easily for those who are sure of it.