Why are people born to rule and others are not?

Updated: Feb 1

With all the hoopla surrounding the marriage of Harry and Meagan, I felt it might be of interest to explain a few things that Americans do not realize about British royalty.

First of all, one might like to know why Harry has no last name. He has a title and a number ranking in line to the throne. He was named Henry Charles Albert David, and he is the Prince of Sussex. He is sixth in line to the crown.

The reason Harry does not have a last name is it is understood he is descended from Jesus of Nazareth, making all royal families inherit the understood but unclaimed “last name” of Christ. All royal families have the right to claim royal status because they are the bloodline of Christ.

The bloodline of Christ did not reach Europe directly as a child born of Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus bore the holy son known as John, the writer of the Gospel of John, the epistles of John, and the Revelations of John. Before John was imprisoned on Patmos (as an old man), he had married a woman of dark skin, who was a Jewish believer of Jesus as the Messiah, either Egyptian or Ethiopian. This couple had a daughter, who as an infant floated on a raft from Alexandria to southern France, along with Mary Magdalene (John’s mother), Mary Salome, Mary of Cleopas (Mary Jacobé), Martha, Lazarus, Maximin of Bethany, Sidonius and Joseph of Arimathea. The raft was without a sail and drifted to a place now known as Saintes-Maries-de-la-Mer.

This bloodline is that which has been theorized in the books that have been written about the Holy Grail. The daughter of John, referred to as “the Black Madonna,” was raised by these women Apostles of Christ as the carrier of a most holy bloodline. As such, “Sangraal,” “Holy Grail, is actually “Sang Rael,” “Blood Holy” or “Holy Blood.” This becomes the blood of Christ that was symbolized by a cup of wine at the Passover Seder meal (a.k.a. The Last Supper).

This bloodline was married to men who were Apostles of Christ, filled with the Holy Spirit. They were saints who gave rise to more female carriers of this holy DNA, who were married to more saintly men, under the careful segregation of communes of saintly Christians. These Apostles would lead by example in the surrounding villages, helping others as needed, while making miracles happen. The people knew these communes were most holy and helpful, so the people protected them and their ways that were Jewish-rooted. The model for knights that would serve true royal kings, all around Europe, was those who were filled with the Holy Spirit.

This long history led to the dynasties that would organize and rule the nations of Europe. To maintain the purest level of the bloodline, the sons and daughters of royal houses were arranged in marriage for that purpose. The revolutions that overthrew royal houses severely limited the gene pool, so that by the Twentieth century the British royal family was the last of its kind.

Throughout all of the centuries, the presence of Christ’s blood did not make a saintly king or queen. It was important for this bloodline to have a proper education, which included deep discussions on spiritual matters and the role and responsibility that a royal child had been born into. It is not too different from the education the Tibetans give to their chosen one, to make sure the reincarnation of a Dali Lama is properly guided. Still, the blood of Christ was intended to get direct spiritual guidance from one who was a true Saint, having the Holy Spirit within him. This teacher of kings and queens was supposed to be the popes, cardinals and bishops of the Church. However, just as there was decay in the bloodline over time, there was also the same collapse of the Church of Rome.

The last true pope lasted only 33 days before he was murdered. (and the cover-up began)

The Church of England was created by Henry VIII, because he did not like the controls the Roman Catholic Church’s pope placed on him. He rebelled against that Church and created his own, in a similar likeness, but not on equal status with the king. That revolution would dilute the bloodline of the English, but it would keep them on life support after other royal houses were eliminated. When the King of England allowed the people to run the country, with a House of Lords designated to defend the crown legislatively, that sacrifice kept their heads attached to their necks. However, the roles and responsibilities of the royal blood began to get lost.

The House of Windsor, which is led by the current Queen of England, Elizabeth, has faced its own struggles with staying pure. The line began with George I and George II, both of who only spoke German, refusing to learn English.  George III was the first of the line to speak English, and he was the monarch that lost the colonies in the new world to independence.  George V was king during the First World War, when his cousins, Kaiser Wilhelm II and Tsar Nicolas II, both saw their reigns ended, with George V losing his royal titles in Germany and Russia. He successor was Edward VIII, whose reign lasted less than a year, as he abdicated the throne to be married to an American divorcee, Wallace Simpson. Because his new wife was divorced and the king is the official head of the Church of England, which did not allow divorce, Edward abdicated because his wife could not hold the title of Queen of England. His successor was his younger brother, George VI, who had a stutter and shunned public speaking, which a king must do. That was especially important as England entered into the Second World War and the king had to steady the people through speeches. Still, under his rule England lost its empire and was reduced to a commonwealth. George VI died at the age of 56, leaving the throne to his eldest daughter, Queen Elizabeth. She has ruled England since 1952, now 66 years, and is now 92.

While the Queen of England appears to be still managing at her elderly age, her eldest son, Prince Charles, is now 69 years old. The decision for the queen not to abdicate and turn the throne over to her eldest son has not been made carelessly. This is because Charles has proved himself unworthy of the throne and Queen Elizabeth is the last pure royal who has not sinned beyond the bounds that royal rule allows. Both Prince Charles and Prince Andrew (age 58), the sons of Elizabeth, are of the pure bloodline of Christ, but both have committed cardinal sins that bar both from heading the Church of England, the least of which is divorce.

Without going into the tainted background of Prince Andrew (known in his younger days, by the press, as “Randy Andy”), Charles has some very dirty laundry that has been kept quiet by the royal house. It is publicly known that he married Diana Spencer (of common blood) and had two sons, William and Harry, who were obviously a dilution of the bloodline of Christ. It is also publicly known that Charles and Diana divorced, with the royal house attempting to claim sole possession of the royal heirs, although the British courts gave Diana, as the mother, full rights to the children. This then led to the mysterious death of Diana, along with her Muslim boyfriend-fiancée Dodi Fayed, which then ended any disputes about parental care of two young princes, in line to the British crown. This adds murder to the list of Charles’ disqualifications for being king. It has not been an official charge, but the queen knows full-well that Charles was involved in ordering that execution.

What is not realized, although there are those that surmise this, is the possibility that Charles never married Diana out of physical attraction to her sexually. Charles was busy lusting for the married woman, Camilla Bowles, and merely chose Diana as a seventeen year old to be his bride, playing on her naiveté. This was because Charles was expected to marry and have children and his uncle, Lord Mountbatten, gave him that advice about choosing a very young and controllable girl to be his wife. In reality, Charles would have to be homosexual (another strike against his being crown worthy) to not be attracted to Diana Spencer sexually; but Charles and Diana never had sex together.

This leads to the question, “Who is the father of William and Harry, if Prince Charles is gay?” That yields a double-edged answer, the first of which leads one back to Randy Andy.

Prince William was born on June 21, 1982. That means he was conceived around October 1981. In February of 1981, Prince Andrew began a casual relationship with a woman by the name of Koo Stark (an American photographer and actress). With Andrew being a lady’s man and with Charles being married to a young lady of beauty, one who was still a virgin, Prince Andrew had a sexual encounter with Diana on the grounds of a royal estate. Diana did not welcome this sexual advance, but she seemed to enjoy the roughness of rape. She became pregnant with a son whose blood was royal, one who looks like his father (not Charles).

William and “Uncle” Andrew

Prince Harry was born on September 15, 1984. That means he was conceived around December 1983 or January 1984. By that time, Diana was completely shunned by Prince Charles and Prince Andrew was actively on duty in the British navy, Diana was limited to contact with her butler and a bodyguard named Barry Mannakee. Mannakee was reassigned in 1986, after news leaked that Diana had fallen love with someone in service to the princess, between 1984 and 1986. It was presumed there was an affair between Diana and Mannakee, which would point to the arrival of Harry as the evidence of her crime of adultery.  Mannakee would die in an automobile accident in 1987 (a convenient death), but Prince Harry favors him (not Charles).

Barry and Harry.

This means that Harry is of common blood, with no royal blood part of his being. This lack helps explain his wild and rebelliousness as a youth, which goes beyond a young prince mourning the death of his mother.

Queen Elizabeth is well aware of the lineage of these two princes, but both have now matured into married men, with both of their wives of common blood. This makes the sons of William at least one-quarter royal DNA, but any offspring that Harry and his American actress wife might have will be purely mongrel blood, of not royal consequence. Of the whole lot, Prince William is the only reasonable choice to head the Church of England, and the queen knows this quite well.

In the symbolism of the dilution of royal blood into common blood, happening at a time in history when the concept of equality has laughed at the prospect of royalty and a bloodline of Christ, the end of the British crown is within sight. Harry knows the intrigue of his supposed father, Prince Charles, and wishes the power that allowed Charles to murder his mother destroyed. This strong desire must be seen as having purposefully led Harry to choose an American actress with a black mother to be his bride. To show his total disdain for the Church of England, he chose the American black head of the U. S. Episcopal Church, who gave the sermon at the royal wedding, in which he twice named the black community organizer and political activist Martin Luther King, Jr., but only once gave mention to a quote of Jesus Christ. It was appropriate that someone not filled with the Holy Spirit speak common words of fantasy as a guiding principle of two commoners wedding in a fantasy affair – a royal pretense.

Love, love, love. Love is all you need. Now I’ll sit down cause we got to get you all married.” No need for the blood of Christ.

When Queen Elizabeth does die, and it is assured that she will not live forever, it is quite possible (if not probable) that she will have set into place the revelation of crimes committed by her son Charles, which goes beyond the murder of his ex-wife. Diana’s butler met with the queen for three hours, when charged with theft of royal belongings – personal letters and a diary written by Diana.  That meeting ended with the queen coming out with the butler (Paul Burrell) and exonerated him, saying, “All charges have been dropped.”  Diana obviously had evidence that would have stripped Charles of all rights to children he did not sire.

Diana and her butler Paul Burrell.

Charles’ ascent to the throne will be short-lived, in more ways than one. The future is a most unstable place, where a great tragedy is about to unfold. The end of a bloodline, in conjunction with the long ago ended spirit line of the papacy, means the Western nations face that uncertainty on the strengths of men and women of common blood, with no true religious commitments to the One God.

So, enjoy the pomp and circumstance of fancy carriages and a beautiful young couple in a ceremony fit for future kings. Few people in America understand why such a lavish affair is warranted. Soon, Prince Andrew’s daughter will wed. She is the offspring of an English commoner – Sarah Ferguson. Princess Eugenie has set her royal wedding spectacular for October 12, 2018. When that news event occurs, perhaps you will understand what royalty is about.


1 view0 comments

Recent Posts

See All

The psychic Daphne

I am remembering an event in my life, from back around 1993.  I had left a well-paying career at UPS in 1991 and taken a job as a delivery driver for a furniture and appliance retailer.  In the year a