The council destroying the Queen sacred image with canabilism charge

March 23, 2018.


           Before going forward in our analysis let notice for matter of the greatest importance that the council goal is to remove the sacredness aspect of the monarch image, for having Subjects approached the monarch as a President of a republic. We do not comment conspiracy theory about the validity of the statement. This is another issue. But, we will the exploitation of those allegation by the council. 

                In the above video the problem was set by the council, Queen Elizabeth II is accused of being a canabalist? That is the question the video intends to answer. I find this video on youtube, the voice is of a British anchor. It sounds as the voice of BBC's Rod Watson. Though there is a logo on the top of the video, there is any name mentioning the media which broadcasted the video. What is clear, the video through the approach it takles the topic acted for the council. Because it commented the matter in a way that goes with the goal of the council being transforming our country in Republic. 

         Above all, the perspective of treating the theme is purely scientific, any trace of monarchic religious approach of the matter. When, you talk of the Royal Family, and the Queen the approach should be religious intellectual, not coldly scientific approach. Because the monarch is appointed by the Church. He is God representative on earth, before being a political figure. The monarch is a moral and virtue figure in everything. Then, any matter relevant to him should be treated such way. But, when you deal matter relevant to the Queen with intellectual lenses, you take her as a political figure, not a saint politic figure, you take her as Head of State, not as monarch. It is totally wrong to fall in the trap of the council of naming our monarch as Head of State. Such appellation is for head of nation and republic, elected and having in the 21rst century democracy phrasology an intellectual image, to be totally dissociated with a religious one. It is not for nothing that in the video, the Queen is shown with Jacque Chirac, the French President. France being the country, that deals politics, democracy as totally dissociated with religion. Violating the laicity of the nation, is a serious crime in France, but that is proper to the history of France. A beautiful country with its own history and trajectory totally different of ours. The bracket comment is here, France becomes a Republic by both emancipated itself from the Pope authority very present in Catholic continental European country, and France carried out a revolution that topple Louis XIV monarch that was accused to be the instrument of the Church in oppressing the people. Laicity is something understandable in French history. Whereas, in our Kingdom the Church and the body politic, the monarchy and its popular side go hand in hand. They enrich each other, there shouldn't be Great Britain as Kingdom without deep religious belonging, without Anglicanism or Protestantism. Anglicanism nurtured our soul for the better, our discipline, ingenious, pragmatic, courageous and virtuous character comes from it. Whenever, you deal with our Kingdom with scientific angle you humiliate, bully and attack for destroying our intellectual and spiritual body.

        The video, started by not bringing the popular rumour or accusation of Queen Elizabeth II drinking human blood, no one can claim not at a moment or another hear or read about her being a canabilist. But, the video tackled  the matter on political conventional manner full of hypocrisy, and very remote of every single ethical and moral consideration. It brought the rumour under the angle of a cultural philosopher, Hubert Hamdinger who wrote a book accusing the Queen of eating human flesh. And then the presenter brings many other cases, to begin with Canadian kids went missing any time the Queen visited the country. In a well calculated move, he moves to give cases in Great Britain. 

      The anchor, then in kind of attempt of answering the accusation started by making a historical study of cannibalism explaining how in primitive societies people eat human flesh in ritual. The second example was case of extreme necessity as in during World War II were in the sieged Russian city of Stalingrad people eat human flesh during 800 days to survive. The third example was cases of plane crash were survivors eat the remaining of their unfortunate dead mates to survive.  Then he moves on to give the last example his analytical masterpiece being, in his sayings, Queen Elizabeth II predecessors eating human flesh and drink human blood for the purpose of a kind of medicine called cop medicine. He cited William III, Charles II, who drink human blood, or Charles I whose beheading pouring blood was drunk because people believe as the monarch blood has energy and vitality. But, he gave any proof or reference to justify those bandwagon analysis, for whitening Queen Elizabeth II by saying after all that is a common practice within the Royal Family. Of course, the move is calculated to carefully and methodically disassociate the Royal Family, the monarch from any religious symbol, power and responsibility. In such way you come to have the feeling that United Kingdom is a Republic, and the Queen is the Head of the State of a Republic and she was named in the video as Head of States of Great Britain and many other countries. The council is working on our Subjects conscience to have them approach the Queen and the monarch as a Republic figure not a monarchical and religious figure. Once again, in our Kingdom the monarchy has always been associated with religious where is Richard Coeur de Lion who attended the crusade during many years, where is William the Confessor, where is Queen Elizabeth I, the Virgin Queen. Because though she never got married, she was named for her purity, for remaining virtuous and chaste. Those are just few example. Then all those Queens, and Kings were aware of their religious and political responsibilities, as Head of the Church of Anglican, and God Deputy on earth. 

   Then approaching a so serious accusation as that of cannibalism as approached to the Queen by tackling the matter, on its legality, not on its religious legality as well is misunderstanding and confounding the Queen to a Head of State that she is not because she is a monarch and Head of Church that made it is a serious crime and sin for the monarch to be accused of a so evil crime. Though, Queen Elizabeth II drank human blood; she has done so surely forced by the council. In the video; the head of the council then (the video is of last year as the Queen was called 91 year old monarch), John Andriangham. A man with no moral, no ethic; corrupted to the bone and which with his criminal colleagues are responsible of the suffering and pain of our Kingdom and Subject. The destruction of the monarchy image through such alleged practice was just an example among endless cases of national treason.  This man John Adriangham is  dead around 5 months back, the new head of the council is Roger Wheeler. After, Adriangham he succeeded to two others heads  that were all dead: Charles Guttrie, Peter Whales, and Peter Inges. 

                                                                                               John Adriangham.

                                                               Roger Wheeler

   The very dangerous talented anchor moved then to explain that conspiracy theorists said though the Queen has done this she could get away with it because the establishment will cover her evil tastes and she is so powerful and famous that she could not pay for those crimes. Then he moves on to say they are successful in their claims because there is any evidences or proofs to back up those claims. He said then the so called Humdinger may never existed with his 367 books and in fact his writings was those of a satire writer named Adam Michael. And to the report s  Canadians kids and other kids going missing were just rumours because there is any proofs to back up those claims. 

   He wonders how can the British Constitutional Monarchy which covers its Head States with respect and paparazzi will allow her to go in night visit in broading school. Then, the anchor said but if she were a canalibalist, she will not face consequences on the law, because in Great Britain it is not a crime to eat human flesh, and in criminal case when there is cannibalism it is associated to murder. To end with his cover up analysis he continues though she is responsible of criminal case, she has to be courted to be jailed,thing that is not possible because she benefits of impunity. And it is said on the website of the Royal Family, that although criminal procedure cannot be taken against the Sovereign as a person under a UK law, the Queen is careful that all her actions and activities are in accordance with the law. And regardless of those dark rumours the Queen is well popular in Great Britain, in Canada where 3/4 loved her, and in America where around 50 percent love her.

   In fact the video is neither talking about cannibalism but the reports of the kidnapping of the real Prince Charles that you know, and is not a secret for any one. With the video the council intends to cover up all those reports of the kidnapping of the Queen's son Prince Charles that I am in Cheam on April 13, 1983 in London. To dissociate my kidnapping from the Queen and the council, they talk about Canadian kids got missing every time the Queen visits the country; Canada making reference to Galveston where the council simulated by kidnapping in collaboration with then American President, Ronald Reagan and his Vice President George Bush; the then French and Russian Presidents: Francois Mitterrand and Leonid Brenij. 

      The anchor accuses the responsible of the news as internees dark blogger, or bad conspiracy theorists. The council moves all around the video with images and references though she kidnapped, or she was made kidnapping her son, she and those who did it will not face any consequence. Because they are supported by French, Russians and Americans with whom the council have done the kidnapping. It is to be noted it is not the countries that did it but their corrupt Presidents of the time, and in Great Britain the council controls a part of army that is represented by the faces on the Royal Family website meaning we control the army she did the kidnapping of the second personality of our Kingdom and she and those who did it will face any consequence.

     Watson continues we did the kidnapping, the replacement by Prince of Wales, and his false son William may be King though they did not have the right that is represented with their proper faces. But, the council never says it Prince Charles was not kidnapped throughout the video, but there is no proofs to prove it and if it is true they will not face justice and  it will carry out their coup attempt, that they cannot do because they not have the power. Useless, to mention the veracity and truthfulness of Prince Charles kidnapping and optional replacement that you all know for being eye witness of the kidnapping and replacement. And never a crime as scientific proofs than that of the kidnapping and replacement of Prince Charles have so much proofs, in fact all of you are proofs as eye witness. 

  To their statement that Prince Charles will not succeed his mother, we tell them that is God Will, that is our Constitution will and it will be, we the Subjects and British and citizens of the world that want justice, love and development will be actors of him having his absolute right, and our Kingdom laws to the succession being respected in our greatest interests.

    In fact the video aims to threat the British and world outlets not to report along with the monarchists, and legalists medias the kidnapping and the optional replacement of Prince Charles. But, they cannot have our Subjects demanding the release of the their King, keeps hostage in Niamey Niger since 1983, and his coronation as King George VII that he is de facto after the death of his mother.  

  King George VII is even planning to sue the members of those councils for the horrible crimes he has been victim. If many among them are dead they are some that are alive, and I have proofs of my kidnapping and their direct involvement in those crimes against not only King George VII but our Kingdom. Because their goal was to take our Kingdom hostage by placing their puppet as  king. 


                                                      King George VII writes this article.

I BUILT MY SITE FOR FREE USING