Gang Stalking World

United we stand. Divided they fall.

Who’s on the throne of England?

Let’s play a game. I was just reading over some of the proposed, new legislation, and I am wondering, if this bill is as it is, and they repel or will will repeal the Royal Marriages Act 1772 in its entirety,  who would then be eligible, to be on the throne of England, spiritually, and on the face of the planet. Imagine of some of those marriages that were there before, showing as ineligible, were now listed as eligible? What would happen to the laws of succession, or rather the line of succession, they would still go through the male line mind you, but who would be on the throne of England?

Which family branch, because I am reading the proposed legislation, and trying to figure out, if section 3.5 does what it says, and if only the first six marriages, require approval, but you go back in time, and repel the act in it’s entirty, then which family would have, or is now eligible for the throne of England. I honestly thought that clause would be backdated, and not current dated, meaning, I thought it would be only current, dated, and not backdated, but I can see that this seems to be otherwise.

I am going to keep reading mind you, but I just thought I would pose the question. Marriages from the 1770′s could become legit again, and the Catholic situation, future forward is not an issue any longer, really! I am wondering if they are truly enabling some previous marriages, from when this act was eligible, to be shown as unapproved, now approved? It’s truly fascinating. Let’s say it would be the coup of the century, and then some if this turned out to be the case, but who knows.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Marriages_Act_of_1772

Section 3 of the resulting Succession to the Crown Act 2013 ,[17] if it goes into effect after also being implemented by the other Commonwealth realms , will repeal the Royal Marriages Act 1772 in its entirety, replacing it with a requirement for the first six persons in the line of succession to obtain prior royal consent in order to maintain their eligibility of succession. Article 3(5) of the new Act also provides that, except for succession purposes, any marriage that would have been void under the original act “is to be treated as never having been void” if:

  • It does not involve the top six persons in the line of succession;
  • Royal consent was never sought;
  • “In all the circumstances it was reasonable for the person concerned not to have been aware at the time of the marriage that the Act applied to it, and”
  • No legal action has been raised that depended on the invalidity of the marriage.

There so that one portion of the clause does say, except for where succession purposes are concerned, but if you are repelling an act that goes back to the 1700’s, how do you know if approval of one marriage, will not upset the balance, it might not upset current succession purposes, but future forward, it could upset others. I am truly wondering what this clause changes, does it legitimize situations that would not previously have been legitimized?

This is so interesting, fascinating, truly. except for succession purposes, to me in my mind, this clause, must be current dated, or nothing at all. Mind you, I disapprove of the whole repelling this, and the act of settlement, mind you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_Settlement_1701

But what if, who has access to a historical database, to see where this could lead?

I mean thing about it, on the surface it does not affect future successions, or rather current succession, but what about the list of 100, and beyond, do some of those previous, marriages arrive into play?

After the official six marriages, then as it so often happens, if a situation arose in future, and let’s say there were some abdications, or another clause that goes further than the first six marriages, what is the contingency plan after that? So many questions. It’s interesting legislation is it not? I would personally repel, the whole thing. The previous laws were there for a reason, and it was not about favoring males over females, the session ran that way for a reason. the line of assention was one of those reasons, he wanted to have a clear line of assention, for heir, and future, joint heirs. Interesting.

I would like to see a listing please, as to which marriages, would be affected by this bill, dating back to the 1700’s, and which situations, would then be affected, and which family branches might now come into play, mind you they would never come, or rather arrive, directly into play, but they could be there, so therefore, I am others, would need to have a list, of those specific, circumstances, that would be affected, by repelling, of the Royal Marriages Act 1772.

That legislation is so very specific, it must be viewed into, meaning looked into from back then, capacity up until now. Everything must be rendered null and void, until they say otherwise, it would be the only situation that would be suitable.

I would like to see a listing please, as to which marriages, would be affected by this bill, dating back to the 1700’s, and which situations, would then be affected, and which family branches might now come into play, mind you they would never come, or rather arrive, directly into play, but they could be there, so therefore, I am others, would need to have a list, of those specific, circumstances, that would be affected, by repelling, of the Royal Marriages Act 1772.

That legislation is so very specific, it must be viewed into, meaning looked into from back then, capacity up until now. Everything must be rendered null and void, until they say otherwise, it would be the only situation that would be suitable.

I have the perfect novel for this, and then this secret marriage here, become suitable, eligible, oh it won’t affect the direct line of succession mind you, but it’s neat to see that this person, or rather this branch is now eligible. It’s fanciful, but you know, interesting.

Article 3(5) of the new Act also provides that, except for succession purposes , any marriage that would have been void under the original act “is to be treatedas never having been void” if:

  • It does not involve the top six persons in the line of succession;
  • Royal consent was never sought;
  • “In all the circumstances it was reasonable for the person concerned not to have been aware at the time of the marriage that the Act applied to it, and”
  • No legal action has been raised that depended on the invalidity of the marriage.

*The more I think about it, I am not worried about it, because this would mean going back, if the article is to be interpreted as is, this would mean going back, and questioning the authority of Victoria, or King George, and making mention that a marriage that they disapproved at the time, that wasn’t eligible, due to the above mentioned reasons, were now eligible, and I am clear, that no one will go back in time and question, Victoria’s authority, or King George, even the parliament that was there at that time, so I am not as worried, I am sure, it’s just a misinterpretation, what else could it be?

July 17, 2013 Posted by | Awareness, Celebrity | , , , , | Leave a comment

I didn’t think he was serious

I didn’t think he was serious

I didn’t think he was serious. When the future king of England abdicated from the throne of England it came as a complete  surprise to many people in the nation, many were heart broken and it put the nation into a crisis until his brother stepped into the situation, but the reality is the situation didn’t have to happen. It occurred because those in the situation with him had been enabling him for so long, it was the only invariable conclusion.

When he started dating Wallis Warfield Simpson, a still married woman there was only one place the relationship could go, but then she divorced, and he was still serious about the relationship. Many understood he was serious, that he was dating someone not only deemed inappropriate, but if he was going to marry her, (which was never going to happen.) then he would have to abdicate the throne, but they just let him stay in the situation, because it was easier then dealing with everything else that was occurring or happening, and then what happened?

The King of England at the time passed away, and his heir apparent was crowned as the King of England, only to abdicate a short time later because he was serious about the Wallis Warfield Simpson situation. It caused turmoil for many, many felt betrayed, many didn’t see it coming, but there were so many others who did see it coming, who enabled the situation to continue for a really long time.

His friends toddied up to him for nothing, his entire social circle understood whom he was dating, and some understood what would happen once crowned King if he continued in such a situation, but they again enabled it to happen. Then the day came when the reigning monarch at that time passed away, and the abdication crisis happened, but it really didn’t have to happen, because enough people understood it, people who could have tried to put a stop to it well in advance, or they could at least had a contingency plan, but the Monarchy operate in a specific manner, and they do things the same continually. That means at any given time a crisis could be happening, could be getting enabled, and all but the unsuspecting public would never see it coming.

There are many interesting plot points with the situation including going so far as to threaten the King with being committed to a mental institution if he didn’t cooperate, once it was time to get him out of the situation.

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil and all that, but honestly human stupidity and their enabling behaviour is equally disruptive, to the course of humanities future prospects.

“Those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it?” ~ George Santayana
(The quote in the past has also been attributed to Winston Churchill)

July 31, 2012 Posted by | Black female, Children, Citizen Informants, Gang Stalking | , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment