This is not royal gossip but has a point.
Donald Trump 'will not deport' Prince Harry and Meghan Markle for one specific reason
There was talk about removing Prince Harry from this country in the 2024 election. Then it was dialed back a bit.
Trump laughed that Megan was terrible and was leading him around by the nose; can there be another reason she seemed in charge?
Kings are traditionally the representatives of the classes that can't govern themselves. Suppose HRHP Harry may be tired out from having to get to know said classes. It could be causing PTSD or depression and the wife would have to lead and make decisions for a while, knowing that the bonds he forms will enable his ability to rule. No, he doesn't have to be physically present where his projected constituents are.
To explain my hypothesis or wild guess about what Harald Hadrada Harry could potentially do, a very brief foray into history is required. To state it simply, the defense of Singapore in late 1941 was beset by mysterious faults and omissions which can be researched on Youtube if readers like (make sure to include "Force Z".)
Suppose the royalty are in spiritual communion with their people and perhaps other monarchies worldwide, suppose another royal power had said to the king, "let us have Malaya, we'll give you half the management types which we capture."
Why would an English king's men need to go to Malaya to get Englishmen? Perhaps the middle and management classes are well aware the king would like to corrupt and traffic them to his people? Perhaps they pray for and keep an eye one another somewhat like the early disciples in the book of Acts? And perhaps the ones who went to Malaya had been flattered as to their importance and given the freedom to mistreat their subjects, which they exploited to their own moral detriment? Royal families surely know all the tricks such as "rope enough to hang one's self."
Suppose the king had then instructed certain of his subjects in charge of keystones of their strategy, like sealing the radar on battleships against the tropics, to make alterations and omissions for the good of their people. The point is, they trust the king to see the big picture and make decisions they themselves may not see the point of. (And if they did, it might betray the plan.)
What if the plan on both sides of the conspiracy had been for forces in Malaya to hold out until help arrived or surrender with honor, so it didn't look like a dive? What if the defenders had sensed it was futile and surrendered too soon? What if that's why Allied prisoners received such harsh treatment?
Suddenly, after the war, Japan revolutionized their economy and became an economic superpower. Perhaps the ones sent back to the King's men in England were handed over to the mafia and had children which were geared to create a social revolution which socialized intelligence, as spelled out in the song "Revolution."
The developing world suddenly got a great deal smarter about how to govern themselves as well. The king's men in England may have been disappointed with that particular outcome but they found themselves needing him and his descendants more. The few who had cooperated during the war may not have been told where it was all going.
Disappearances could be chalked up to the explosive power of modern bombs and artillery which can make a person disappear.
Why would the royals want to empower the world to govern itself? They can't do it all. But they can prop people into power who are dependent on the royals' coordination and help. Perhaps we will see a clearly senile presidential candidate, or perhaps one who talks in pidgin unless she sounds rehearsed? I hope it's far away.
------------------------------
It is easy to speculate that the royal family clearly created a couple that looks a bit like the South. Then they positioned them here with a "royal row."
It is my theory that the point of banning settlement west of the central Appalachians with the Proclamation Line of 1763 was to counterbalance the Enlightenment thinkers who led to the Revolution with loyal King's men who slipped in somehow. Forum member Byrd supplied this information in another thread:
"Britain tapped Field Marshal Jeffery Amhurst as commander in chief for the French-Indian War. You may remember him. He was the ...gentleman... who authorized handing out blankets contaminated with smallpox to the Native Americans (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffery_Am...on_Amherst)" Epidemics tend to spread.
They failed to rise up in the Revolution or when given another chance in the War of 1812. They may have been expected to hold out in the Civil War without direct military support.
What if they were later instructed to support liberal immigration policies to increase the number of potential royalists? What if the royals had cribbed the concept of avoiding a violent war and staging a "march through the institutions" from Communists? In the same song in which the Beatles encouraged their followers to not reveal that their revolution was about socializing intelligence (If you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao, you ain't gonna make it with anyone anyhow) they also sang "when you talk about destruction, don't you know that you can count me out."
Donald Trump 'will not deport' Prince Harry and Meghan Markle for one specific reason
There was talk about removing Prince Harry from this country in the 2024 election. Then it was dialed back a bit.
Trump laughed that Megan was terrible and was leading him around by the nose; can there be another reason she seemed in charge?
Kings are traditionally the representatives of the classes that can't govern themselves. Suppose HRHP Harry may be tired out from having to get to know said classes. It could be causing PTSD or depression and the wife would have to lead and make decisions for a while, knowing that the bonds he forms will enable his ability to rule. No, he doesn't have to be physically present where his projected constituents are.
To explain my hypothesis or wild guess about what Harald Hadrada Harry could potentially do, a very brief foray into history is required. To state it simply, the defense of Singapore in late 1941 was beset by mysterious faults and omissions which can be researched on Youtube if readers like (make sure to include "Force Z".)
Suppose the royalty are in spiritual communion with their people and perhaps other monarchies worldwide, suppose another royal power had said to the king, "let us have Malaya, we'll give you half the management types which we capture."
Why would an English king's men need to go to Malaya to get Englishmen? Perhaps the middle and management classes are well aware the king would like to corrupt and traffic them to his people? Perhaps they pray for and keep an eye one another somewhat like the early disciples in the book of Acts? And perhaps the ones who went to Malaya had been flattered as to their importance and given the freedom to mistreat their subjects, which they exploited to their own moral detriment? Royal families surely know all the tricks such as "rope enough to hang one's self."
Suppose the king had then instructed certain of his subjects in charge of keystones of their strategy, like sealing the radar on battleships against the tropics, to make alterations and omissions for the good of their people. The point is, they trust the king to see the big picture and make decisions they themselves may not see the point of. (And if they did, it might betray the plan.)
What if the plan on both sides of the conspiracy had been for forces in Malaya to hold out until help arrived or surrender with honor, so it didn't look like a dive? What if the defenders had sensed it was futile and surrendered too soon? What if that's why Allied prisoners received such harsh treatment?
Suddenly, after the war, Japan revolutionized their economy and became an economic superpower. Perhaps the ones sent back to the King's men in England were handed over to the mafia and had children which were geared to create a social revolution which socialized intelligence, as spelled out in the song "Revolution."
The developing world suddenly got a great deal smarter about how to govern themselves as well. The king's men in England may have been disappointed with that particular outcome but they found themselves needing him and his descendants more. The few who had cooperated during the war may not have been told where it was all going.
Disappearances could be chalked up to the explosive power of modern bombs and artillery which can make a person disappear.
Why would the royals want to empower the world to govern itself? They can't do it all. But they can prop people into power who are dependent on the royals' coordination and help. Perhaps we will see a clearly senile presidential candidate, or perhaps one who talks in pidgin unless she sounds rehearsed? I hope it's far away.
------------------------------
It is easy to speculate that the royal family clearly created a couple that looks a bit like the South. Then they positioned them here with a "royal row."
It is my theory that the point of banning settlement west of the central Appalachians with the Proclamation Line of 1763 was to counterbalance the Enlightenment thinkers who led to the Revolution with loyal King's men who slipped in somehow. Forum member Byrd supplied this information in another thread:
"Britain tapped Field Marshal Jeffery Amhurst as commander in chief for the French-Indian War. You may remember him. He was the ...gentleman... who authorized handing out blankets contaminated with smallpox to the Native Americans (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffery_Am...on_Amherst)" Epidemics tend to spread.
They failed to rise up in the Revolution or when given another chance in the War of 1812. They may have been expected to hold out in the Civil War without direct military support.
What if they were later instructed to support liberal immigration policies to increase the number of potential royalists? What if the royals had cribbed the concept of avoiding a violent war and staging a "march through the institutions" from Communists? In the same song in which the Beatles encouraged their followers to not reveal that their revolution was about socializing intelligence (If you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao, you ain't gonna make it with anyone anyhow) they also sang "when you talk about destruction, don't you know that you can count me out."
