|
|
Post by lucy on Dec 19, 2012 19:01:45 GMT -5
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2169128/Mike-Hastings-Forklift-driver-historians-said-true-heir-British-throne-dies-aged-71,html If this is the truth and this would have been the true King of England, then the "Royal" family that we know of, usurped the throne! I had found the documentary about Queen Elizabeth not being the true heir, and my sis found this article that the man some historians had believed was the true heir to the throne, died earlier this year....strange it happened the year of the so-called Queen's 50th Jubilee.... Interesting thing to me because it wouldn't surprise me if this were true that the family we think of as royalty are nothing more than a bunch of literal "bastards"! Sorry, not a fan of the so called British royalty...no matter what power they have in the world,
|
|
|
|
Post by artemis on Dec 20, 2012 16:36:14 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by lucy on Dec 20, 2012 23:36:59 GMT -5
I do remember reading or hearing that they were really Battenburg, but that sounded too "German", so they changed it to Mountbatten to sound more British, but I don't know if that was queenie's side or old Philip....
So many batty windsors...can't keep up with them....and the ones that they didn't want to remember like Prince Eddy and Prince John....Prince "Eddy" hooked up with the scandal of Jack the Ripper, and the other was a child with mental problems...like the one Kennedy daughter, not up to par, so pack them away in some institution.
|
|
|
|
Post by artemis on Dec 21, 2012 6:31:15 GMT -5
Really? I didnt know that, but it makes perfect sense. Its BATTENBERG. "BERG" in German is "mountain" so its all understood.... As clear as daylite....
|
|
|
|
Post by lucy on Dec 23, 2012 19:16:51 GMT -5
If you Google Battenberg plus royal family, Wikipedia brings this up that Mountbatten was the "ANGLICISED" version of Battenberg.
Think about it, back in time, far enough the area known as Germany today would have been established before the British isles. So the royal line would have been there first, and then branched upward and so on and so forth.
Their family tree is basically the same branches because they intermarry.
|
|
|
|
Post by artemis on Dec 24, 2012 4:01:58 GMT -5
Yes, exactly the same thing I meant in the previous post, their name was anglicized
|
|
|
|
Post by artemis on Dec 30, 2012 6:40:55 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by lucy on Dec 30, 2012 20:42:11 GMT -5
The queen, the way she never was. She was on the throne for so long, most people of that time only knew of her, much like us today with the other old sea hag.
Actually, according to the documentary of the King of England in Australia, the imposter went back a couple of hundred years before "Vickie" was the queen.
And her arranged marriage to Albert....didn't he have something to do with Abe Lincoln's Assassination? There was something I had read, but I don't remember where it was now.
Something odd.
|
|
|
|
Post by sherlok on Feb 21, 2013 9:55:10 GMT -5
Found an incredible article that I found to be fascinating -- actually an interview transcript with revisionist historian Greg Hallet (author of 15 books) about the fraudulent history of the "Royal" Family. Way to much info to post it here so here is a link: www.theworldoftruth.net/HallettReport/No6.html#.USUGMlcrFEo |
|
