Thread by @MrGoldstein7

The English Civil War ended with the alleged beheading of Charles I in 1649. Like the previous history of England we are sold, this history never made much sense.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_C…

If we look broadly at the given history of Charles I, it seems like he did pretty much the same thing his father did, shutting down Parliament whenever he liked and stealing freely from all those around him. So why did he fail where other kings succeeded?

Should we believe the mainstream historians who tell us he just made more mistakes than previous kings? No, we shouldn't. We shouldn't believe anything mainstream historians tell us, and least of all things like this.

But to get through this maze, there are many things you have to know, and those things are generally quite well hidden. The historians have told you a sexy fiction, as usual, and to get you to believe it they have to hide most pertinent facts.

The facts here start way back, but we will only go as far back as the so-called Wars of the Roses. Here are the first two sentences at Wikipedia on that subject:

Two sentences, two towering lies.

The War wasn't between cadet branches named #York and #Lancaster, as they want you to believe. It was an attempted coup upon the #Plantagenets by outside forces—as I will show you.

The York line comes from Edmund of Langley, Duke of York, son of Edward III.
The Lancaster line comes from John of Gaunt, his brother.

But Edmund wasn't a York, and there was no “House of York”, since York was just a title. Edmund was a #Plantagenet, and had no “York” blood. No one was named York here. Edmund's mother was French, and was a Capet, not a York.

Edmund's wife was Castilian, and she was of the house of Ivrea. Same for John of Gaunt, who was just as #Plantagenet as anyone, according to the mainstream.

Gaunt's wife was Blanche, who they now call Blanche of Lancaster to support the given story, but who descended from Henry III through her father and a Beaumont through her mother. So she was also a #Plantagenet, not a #Lancaster.

Again, Lancaster was just the title of her father, but it wasn't anyone's real name here.
Also, the War of the Roses didn't “eventually” eliminate the male lines of both families. It didn't eliminate them ever, or at all.

The Plantagenets in both lines always had plenty of males, and still do. Only if you mean male to male to male lines is that true, but families don't proceed only male to male, since that would mean females can't carry bloodlines.

According to the Jewish/Phoenician lines these people are actually forwarding, just the opposite is true, and the Plantagenets always had lots of fertile daughters.

As proof of that, remember that as soon as the Stanleys/Tudors took the Crown, they ditched this King-only rule, putting several queens on the throne almost immediately (Jane, Mary, Elizabeth, Mary, Anne).

So why were the historians so keen to sell this fiction? Because they were hiding something. And what is that? It is that they want you to think this is York versus Lancaster, when it is actually Plantagenet versus some hidden party. And what party is that?

Well, the first place to look is John of Gaunt's wife. She is our first key here. She is where Gaunt took the name Lancaster from, since her father was Henry de Grosmont, the Duke of Lancaster, the wealthiest and most powerful peer in the realm.

The title Earl of Lancaster had been created long before, in 1267, so Gaunt didn't invent it. But here is the money shot: Grosmont was also titled the Earl of Derby. Do you recognize that? That is the title the Stanleys took up in 1485.

So how could Grosmont still have it as late as 1361? We are told the Ferrers were the previous Earls of Derby, first creation, up to 1266, but there is no mention at Wiki of this title passing to anyone else in the interim.

The Ferrers had come over from Normandy with William the Conquerer, and they were originally Ferrieres. They were linked to the Ferrieras of Spain. Later, the name became Ferris, Farrow, and Faris. Think actress Anna Faris, who is also a Bathurst.

A little more digging shows us that when the title was taken from the Ferrers by Henry III, he gave it to his son Edmund Crouchback. His sons then became Earls of Lancaster. So that is how Grosmont got the title Earl of Derby.

Is there a link between the Stanleys of Isle of Mann and the Dukes of Lancaster? Yes, because Thomas Stanley, 1st Earl Derby, second creation, married Eleanor Neville, whose grandmother was Lady Joan de Beaufort, who was the daughter of. . . John of Gaunt.

Once the Stanleys took the title Earl of Derby, one of their subsidiary titles was Baron Stanley of Preston in the Palatine of Lancaster.

They didn't take that title until much later (1886), but it is interesting that at that time they decided enough time had passed that they could tip their hand to us more fully.

Not only are they now admitting they were behind the Lancasters, but they are admitting that #Cromwell's big win at Preston was actually due to them as well.

The Stanleys took the Crown of England in a secret coup at the Battle of Bosworth Field (1485), with the Tudors being fictional. They were really #Stanley

But as we are seeing, the infiltration of the royal lines started long before that, and John of Gaunt is a central character in that. John of Gaunt may be a plant in the royal lines, not actually being a son of Edward III.

It turns out John was born in Holland, and his father took little interest in him from the first. He looked far more Jewish than his brothers. As a third son behind surviving brothers with sons, he was lost in the shuffle. . . until later.

But through his mother Philippa, Gaunt was descended from Komnenes. They were Byzantine Emperors, originally from the area of ancient Armenia. So, Phoenicians or Jews.

Of course all the ruling lines of Europe were also Jewish/Phoenician, but the Komnenes are a particularly powerful branch, infiltrating royal houses both north and south, east and west.

I will be told Edmund of York's mother was the same woman, Philipa of Hainault, but the difference between Edmund and Gaunt would be in the father. According to English law, Edmund's paternal line would trump the maternal line, making him a Plantagenet.

But if Gaunt's father wasn't the King, that local law wouldn't pertain. If his father was also a Jew from Holland, his “blood” would be determined by his matrilineal line, making him a Komnene.

So it looks to me like the Wars of the Roses were the early attempts of these Komnenes to take over the Crown from the Plantagenets. For about a hundred years they made some progress but mostly failed, until the Stanleys fully succeeded.

Therefore, we can now answer a question I previously couldn't answer: where did the Stanleys come from? They were obviously Phoenician, but who were they before they were Stanleys?

We can now see it doesn't really matter, because we should have been following the women, even with the Stanleys. It was the 1st Earl of Derby's wife, the Neville, that we should have been following, since it is she who links us to this previous action, and back to John of Gaunt.

You will say, “Great, but what does that have to do with Charles I, almost two centuries later?” As it turns out, almost everything, because there again, it is what we aren't told that matters the most.

The key figure in the English Revolution is George Villiers, Duke of Buckingham, whom they admit was the lover of James I and best friend of his son Charles I.

But I encourage you to read the Wikipedia page of Buckingham. It is total mess, even by Wiki standards. Large parts of it don't even scan. The page reads like it was written by a computer on the fritz, or pieced together in fragments.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Vi…

Here is all they tell us of Villiers' ancestry:

The son of a minor gentleman? Pshaw! As usual, they left out all the good stuff. They forgot to tell you that through his mother Mary Beaumont, he was a direct descendant of King Henry III, through the Earls of Lancaster.

However, that line was turned 180 degrees over two generations, first when the 3rd Earl married a Chaworth, daughter of a Beauchamp of the Earls of Warwick; and second when their grandson married a de Vere, daughter of the Earl of Oxford.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maud_Chaw…

The de Veres returned us to the original English lines, which were from France (including the Guises and Dukes of Normandie). Same for the Beauchamps, who were from the same French lines.

The Beaumont/Lancaster line was also watered down by Ferrers, Despensers, Darcys, Talbots, Armstrongs, and so on. So by the time it reached Buckingham, it was mainly French again.

As in the line of the King, what we have here is not mainly a War of the Roses, but a War of the Marriages. You have many Jewish foreign lines trying to capture the English crown by marriage. So to unwind the early history of England, you have to follow the nearly hidden queens.

Also important is Buckingham's wife, neglected and rarely mentioned. The fact that Buckingham was gay doesn't negate the fact that he had four children, and that his wife was a. .Manners, daughter to the Earl of Rutland, The the richest family in England outside the royal family

The Manners were Nevilles as well, but in the main lines they were #FitzAlans, same as #Stuarts, same as William the Conqueror. So, again, French. Further back the Manners are Middletons and Strothers, taking us to the same place.

Same for Buckingham's Villiers line, which also goes back to France.

So what does all that mean? It means that Buckingham was on the FitzAlan/Stuart/Plantagenet side of this long feud, not the Komnene/Stanley/Tudor side. And though Charles was a Tudor through Mary, it looks like the Crown had left the Komnene/Stanley/Tudor rails somehow.

Charles was a Douglas through his grandfather, and the Douglases link us to the Tudors a second time. But remember, Charles was also a Bourbon through Mary's mother, and was from the Oldenburgs, Kings of Denmark, in at least two recent lines.

The problem appears to be that Charles and his first mate Buckingham had both left the Tudor ship, deciding to embrace their southern and Catholic roots rather their northern/Protestant/Stanley/Komnene roots. To put it in the old fake terms, they were York not Lancaster.

This is why Charles wanted to marry the Infanta of Spain, and when that failed he married the daughter of the French King. All the while the Stanleys, through the Parliament, were telling him he needed to marry someone in their lines.

This is why Buckingham also refused Stanley orders. They wanted him to attack Spain and fight to liberate the Protestants in Germany. Instead, he let the Spanish fleet escape and fought against the Protestants in Holland, as an ally of France.

And that is why all hell finally broke loose. The Stanleys had been in control of the Crown since the time of Henry VII. They had controlled Elizabeth and then James I. But Buckingham arrived and began trying to turn James back to the York side. He succeeded with Charles.

And that is why Parliament acted completely different with Charles than with James. Parliament was controlled by the Stanleys, and the Stanleys were used to the King doing what he was told. Charles failed to get that message.

Buckingham was allegedly stabbed to death at age 35 at Greyhound Pub in Portsmouth by Lt. John Felton. Felton just happened to be related to Thomas Howard, 21st Earl of Arundel, telling you what to think of this story.

If Buckingham was “hugely unpopular”, as we are told, do you really think he would be hanging out unguarded in a pub? Of course not. Dukes don't drink in pubs, then or now, but especially not when it is known that they are the target of plots. This story couldn't be more absurd.

More indication it is fiction is that it was fictionalized by Alexandre Dumas in The Three Musketeers.
If you will remember, Felton was a character in the novel under his own name, portrayed as a Puritan. This is just Dumas' way of admitting Felton was a Lancastrian/Tudor/Stanley

In the book, Felton is ordered to guard Milady Winter, a French spy for Cardinal Richelieu. This is the French connection, since Buckingham and Charles were linked to the French, not only through Queen Henrietta Maria, but through their Catholic sympathies and “Yorkist” leanings.

So in the novel, Buckingham is assassinated on the order of Richelieu, but this is a reversal. Richelieu would have no reason to assassinate Buckingham, since Buckingham was France's greatest ally.

Dumas wants us to believe Buckingham was having an affair with the French Queen Anne, but of course this is impossible, seeing that Buckingham was gay. Therefore we see how Dumas is continuing the old propaganda, but from the French side.

Even in 1844, the French still didn't want the world to know they had anything to do with the English Revolution of the 1640s. So we may assume Dumas was also linked to the Stanley/Komnene faction.

In the 1973 film, directed by Richard Lester (real name Liebman, Jewish), Buckingham is sold to us as a Protestant, another reversal, as you see. It was Buckingham's Catholic and Yorkist ties that made him dangerous in England, and of course the French were well aware of that.

When Buckingham first meets Queen Anne in the film (in the laundry), he says the French Protestants were asking for help from England. Another reversal, since Buckingham himself was a Catholic Englishman seeking help from the French.

But the producers of this (admittedly entertaining) movie don't want you to know that. Who were they? Salkinds, born in Danzig to Russian-Jewish parents.

At any rate, if Buckingham was so unpopular, his life and death should have been a huge black mark on his family, but we don't see that. His son became the 2nd Duke and fought for the Royalists in the Civil Wars.

After St. Neots he was allowed to escape to the Netherlands. His lands were not confiscated, simply being given to his future father-in-law, Lord Fairfax. Typical. That was so it would be easy to return the lands to him when he came back. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of…

Which begs the question how they knew he would be coming back. Did Parliament have a crystal ball? No. Parliament should have banished people like him permanently, seizing all lands permanently, and revoking titles. But they didn't.

Just a few years after the First Duke's death, his daughter Mary married a Herbert, Earl of Pembroke. Three years later, after Herbert's death, she became the Duchess of Richmond and Lennox by marrying James Stewart. She later married a Howard.

This confirms once again that Buckingham's death was faked.
For more proof of that, we have the ridiculous story of the 2nd Duke of Buckingham's return to England in 1657. Since Cromwell was still around, why on Earth would this top Royalist come back?

We are told it was to marry the daughter of Lord Fairfax, but that doesn't explain it. He was arrested on August 18, aces and eights, and sent to the Tower. For some reason, Cromwell didn't pursue his death for treason, and when Cromwell died he was released. More shenanigans.

You can be sure he was never in the Tower for a moment. By 1662 he was Privy Council, and was the richest man in England outside the Royals, all his lands and titles being restored. So tidy.

The 2nd Duke feuded with Lord Chancellor Edward Hyde, wanting his position. He got it a few years later when Hyde was prosecuted for. . . pretty much nothing. For disliking Buckingham and Barbara Villiers, mainly.

Buckingham then became the head of the aptly named Cabal Ministry, a quincunx of crypto-Jews, and did fine until he tried to undermine one of the other ministers, the more popular Henry Bennet, Earl of Arlington.

Arlington won that round, and Buckingham was forced into retirement. Arlington's father-in-law was Louis de #Nassau, Prince of #Orange. These Princes would soon become Kings of England.

If the 1st Duke of Buckingham's assassination was faked, he must have been in on it. Why would he agree to disappear in 1628? Well, Parliament had been trying to impeach him as Lord High Admiral since 1625.

They tried a second time a year later, failing only because Buckingham was actually popular. Not unpopular, but popular. Anyone resisting the Protestants was popular at that time, because the peasants and gentry were still mainly. . . #Catholic.

Remember, this was still only a few decades after Henry VIII kicked Rome out of England and stole all its wealth and ornaments. People don't forget that so fast. At the ground level, the #Protestants were still looked upon as invaders and thieves, since that is what they were.

Your basic citizen didn't understand that the Jews were behind the Protestants, but he understood the Protestants were thieves nonetheless. His parents and grandparents had watched it happen.

So if Buckingham was unpopular, it was only with the Stanleys and their allies, who now had him targeted. Buckingham knew he was targeted, and he knew by whom. They had recently taken out his personal physician, Dr. Lambe, and had published pamphlets prophesying that

That is how it currently appear on Buckingham's page at Wikipedia. Notice anything? How about the footnote number? It is just accidentally the number 33?

So my guess is Buckingham agreed to step aside, rather than face a worse fate. At 35, his looks would be fading, and so his hold on Charles. He probably saw he hadn't the allies in England to ultimately succeed, and retired to France.

His only hope was an alliance with France and/or Spain. They were the only ones who could hope to counter the power of the Stanleys. But that wasn't in the cards in 1628, because both France and Spain were already up to their necks in wars, including one with eachother.

When both countries got involved in the new War of the Mantuan Succession in that year, Buckingham probably threw his hands up in despair and gave up.

He knew this would have been the perfect time for France to take England, since they already had a Queen on the throne and a King who was sympathetic to them.

I believe Charles would have welcomed a French army to overthrow the Tudors/Stanleys, and this is tacitly confirmed in many histories, which admit Charles was dominated by his French wife Henrietta Maria. Her brother was Louis XIII, and we may assume she begged him to intervene.

But by 1628 it was clear that wasn't going to happen. And why not? Richelieu and Louis didn't want England? No, of course they did, but they were simply outmaneuvered by the Stanleys/Komnenes in this case, who deftly kept their eyes elsewhere.

Who do you think was pushing the Thirty Years War against the Habsburgs? Same people. They were behind Frederick V, King of Bohemia.

Who do you think kicked off the intrigue in Mantua? Same people. Francesco IV, Duke of Mantua, was married to a Savoy, so when he died the Savoyards claimed Mantua. The mainstream wants you to think this means France was claiming Mantua, but it is deeper than that.

This is because Savoy wasn't really French. Its blood goes back to. . . are you ready. . . Joan of Valois. Remember her? The mother of Philippa of Hinault and grandmother of John of Gaunt. Cue tense music. Bom-bommm.

They hail back to the Kings of Hungary and then to the Komnenes, Byzantine Emperors. So the “Stanleys” were sparking this war in Mantua as well.

Savoy was also the home of King Victor Emmanuel III, the King of Italy and lurker behind Mussolini in WWII. It is always the same people, as you see.

Yes, Savoy was a Komnene territory, which is why it allied tightly to England in WWII. There were two main factions behind Mussolini: 1) MI5 out of London, and 2) King Victor Emmanuel III, of Savoy. That is because they were both led by Komnenes.

The war in Mantua was a brilliant ploy, as you now see, since it not only forced the Habsburgs to fight on yet another front, it also drew French and Austrian attention away from England at a time when she was weak. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_th…

The historians hired by the Stanleys always extol Richelieu as a genius and the English as bumblers at this time, but the exact opposite was the case.

Richelieu was a fool, always running in the wrong direction, and the “English” were so savvy you don't even know about their existence until now. I would now say it is possible Richelieu was a Komnene agent, failing in France on purpose.

@threadreaderapp unroll