Was Charles I really beheaded? Of course not. We are told a large crowd was present to witness the execution, but many lines of soldiers surrounded the scaffold, keeping the public at a great distance. 
They admit the public was too far away to hear any of the speeches, which means they were also too far away to make a positive ID on Charles. Although it was common practice to hold the head up and cry “Behold the head of the traitor”, this was not done. Why?
I assume because this was not the head of the traitor Charles. It was the head of some recent corpse they had taken from the morgue.
Charles II, his son, planned a huge royal mausoleum to be erected for his father in Hyde Park, but it was never built. Why? Because at that time his father was still alive, and Charles I probably thought it was bad luck to have an empty mausoleum in Hyde Park calling out to him.
He was allegedly buried in the Henry VIII vault at Windsor Castle, but that also makes no sense and is another tall clue. Charles was killed for going against the “Tudors”, so the last place he would wish to be buried is with Henry VIII. Of course his family would have known that
So this part of the story was obviously written by the Stanleys, as a final twist of the knife. Charles wasn't really buried anywhere at the time, so they could make up whatever story they wished. They placed him with Henry VIII to make a Tudor out of him at last.
So where did he go? He went wherever his wife and children were, so look where they were. I don't think he was ever in England after 1642, which would mean he was in the Hague with the Prince of Orange—who had just married his daughter Mary (she was 9 years old).
If Charles was gone, why have a war from 1642 to 1649? Why have a war at any time?—because it was profitable in a multitude ways. It gave the Stanleys the pretext for pillaging the country freely for almost seven years. Need I say more?
It gave them the pretext for raising taxes. It gave them the pretext for pillaging Ireland. And it kept the Spanish and French armies and navies away, since they were scared away by reports of the ferocious Parliamentarian forces, capable of defeating a king.
It was Charles and not the Crown that was the problem for the Stanleys and Parliament, since a king was back on the throne very soon with Charles II. The Stanleys were perfectly satisfied to have a king front them, as long as that king did what he was told.
So the idea this was all about replacing a monarchy with a fairer from of government obviously doesn't fly. Neither Cromwell nor anyone else ever cared about making the government more representative of the people, and Cromwell soon became a dictator anyway.
So Parliament apparently never had any problem with the monarchy as such. The problem was always that Charles, under the tutelage of Buckingham, had chosen his Plantagenet side over his “Tudor” side, refusing direct orders from the Stanleys.
That couldn't be allowed, because the Stanleys knew it would end up with the country backsliding into Catholicism, which would allow Rome back into the country.
Of course this leads us back to Mary I Tudor, who tried to do just that. Why did the Stanleys allow it? Well, they didn't allow it: they did everything they could to prevent it, including trying to put Lady Jane Grey on the throne instead.
But the problems of Henry VIII in siring a son put them over a barrel. The death of Edward VI at age 15 was like a stake through their hearts. Even worse was Mary's marriage to Philip and the alliance with Spain.
And when the Emperor Charles V ceded the Kingdom of Jerusalem to Philip, making Mary Queen of Jerusalem as well, the Stanleys' worst nightmare came true. Fortunately, Mary was young and stupid and Philip wasn't apprised of the deep politics of England.
Mary didn't realize who was really behind the Grey plot, and at first she executed only Dudley. After the Wyatt Rebellion a few months later, she also executed Grey, her family, Dudley's family, and allegedly and eventually Cranmer.
But she still missed the main players, since these trials were actually chaired by Thomas Stanley, Earl of Derby, and John Bourchier, Earl of Bath. Those two were the top conspirators against her, so she had let the fox back into the henhouse.
She should have executed all of Edward's Privy Counsellors, but she didn't. And her new Chancellor Gardiner was no help, though he must have known the lay of the land. He had been imprisoned in the Tower by that Privy Council, so he should have known them for who they were.
Did they pay him off? They must have, since I can't find any other way to explain it. He was still considered too dangerous, paid or no, and he conveniently “died” the next year, 1555, possibly poisoned, but probably just banished to France or somewhere.
Mary didn't last too long, either, ruling for only five years and dying mysteriously at age 42. Also mysterious is that all her pregnancies weirdly came to nothing, not even miscarriages. We are told they were false pregnancies, but that is highly unlikely.
More likely is that she was being poisoned, killing her fetuses, and finally succumbed to it herself in 1558. Her mainstream bio confirms that suspicion, since it so markedly fails to ask any questions, treating a death at age 42 as completely normal.
Her bio reads like it is still being controlled by Stanleys to this day. Go read it yourself if you don't believe me.
There is another possibility, and that is that Mary Tudor didn't die at all. The Stanleys had been running plots against her all along, and maybe one of them finally succeeded. Maybe that plot was to fake her death while Philip was away, bundling her off to Germany or Poland.
You will say this would be impossible, but Philip cared very little for her, especially after she had failed to produce a son for him for five years, and the Stanleys probably figured he wouldn't look too hard for her.
Even Mary's Catholic allies in England had lost patience with her, as they knew she couldn't have a child at her age. That guaranteed she would be followed by Elizabeth, so they figured they might as well get on with it.
Drawing out the inevitable would only make things worse, since the Protestant faction wasn't going to go away or be defeated.
The Catholic faction would have to actually kill thousands of top Protestants, including Elizabeth, the Stanleys, and many others, and they weren't prepared to do that—or couldn't.
So most of them likely thought their best option was to parlay with the Stanleys, giving Mary up to them for a guarantee of her life and safe transport to Germany. That is my best guess, though of course it is impossible to say how far the Stanleys kept their promises.
For whatever reasons, these people do prefer fake deaths over real ones— especially where their own royals are involved. Mary may have been a Catholic, but she was still a Tudor. . . meaning, she was a Stanley. These people don't poison their own, if they can possibly avoid it.
This means to me that the Marian executions, all 283, were probably manufactured, existing only on paper. We are told Mary had many prominent Protestant theologians burned at the stake, but this was not the form of execution practiced in England. That was hangings or beheadings.
Mary's history looks to have been later rewritten by her enemies to prevent any sympathy for her and to prevent anyone from being interested in questioning her bio. What better way to move people on than to call her Bloody Mary and teach that she loved to torture innocent clergy?
That would mean Cranmer's death was also faked, which, honestly, I always suspected. There is no way the Stanleys would allow Cranmer to be burned at the stake.
We have many signs of this in the mainstream history, starting with Cranmer leading Edward's funeral on August 8, 1553. Aces and eights Chai. To me that is just the admission that everything after that was fake.
The Star Chamber that allegedly sent Cranmer to the Tower was led by. . . Lord Stanley. For some reason not given, Cranmer was transferred to Oxford for a second trial, though he had already been sentenced to death.
Obviously this was done to get him out of London and out of the public eye. It would be far easier to fake a death in a smaller town.
We are supposed to believe that he was tried for heresy in Oxford, under Papal jurisdiction. An outrageous claim, since the Pope had no jurisdiction over a Church of England Archbishop. Cranmer wasn't Catholic, remember? Nonetheless, we are told:
The Pope cannot deprive a Church of England archbishop of anything. Nor can the Pope give permission to secular authorities to do anything, since secular authorities could not ask for his permission. That is what secular means. So this is history for the thinking-impaired.
Rome didn't decide Cranmer's fate, since they had no authority here. This is just the absurd attempt to make you think Rome was to blame. Next, we get an even more ridiculous story of cat and mouse, where we are supposed to think Mary toyed with Cranmer before murdering him.
He was taken out of jail in Oxford and housed with the Dean of Christchurch. And we are supposed to believe that? Although Cranmer allegedly submitted himself to the authority of Mary and the Pope, we are told the bishop of London Edmund Bonner wasn't satisfied.
So they set a date for execution. Cranmer then repudiated all Protestantism, participated in Mass, and received absolution. That should have been the end of it, since recanting heretics are reprieved. And by the definition of absolution, he should have been absolved.
But we are supposed to believe that Mary broke all her own laws, and those of the Pope, in order to kill Cranmer anyway, out of spite. So, you can be sure it never happened.
I can even tell you where Cranmer ended up. After his alleged death, he went to Germany, where he took the name Edward Whitchurch. Yes, he pretended to be his old publisher, who had fled to Germany when Mary came to the throne.
As Whitchurch, Cranmer then remarried his own wife and returned to England, living in opulence in Surrey.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margarete…
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margarete…
In 1555, Cranmer's daughter Margery married Thomas Norton, secretary of Edward Seymour, Duke of Somerset. Not a bad marriage for someone whose father had just allegedly been burned at the stake as a heretic and traitor. Cranmer finally died for real in 1562, at age 73.
Of course this means Latimer and Ridley were not burnt at the stake in Oxford, either. No one was. My guess is these stories of burnings didn't even find currency until 1563, when the fraud John Foxe published his Actes and Monuments.
https://twitter.com/MrGoldstein7/status/1457188704057921546?s=20
He was the tutor of the children of Henry Howard, Earl of Surrey. Foxe is described as a martyrologist, which means he was an expert in the creation of martyrs. Which means he knew just how to manufacture them from whole cloth, via fake burnings at the stake.
Under Edward VI, Foxe lived in the mansion of the Duchess of Richmond (Mary Howard, wife of Fitzroy, illegitimate son of Henry VIII), meaning Foxe was an agent of the Stanleys and their allies—including William Cecil, Baron Burghley, who would be Elizabeth's Lord High Treasurer.
His son would be Robert Cecil, Earl of Salisbury.
Another of Foxe's overseers and handlers was John Bale, who had denounced the monastic system at the behest of the Tudors/Stanleys. He had fled at the rising of Mary, but was protected all along by the Stanleys. I would assume Bale is an ancestor of actor Christian Bale.
In the 1989 film The Return of the Musketeers, starring the same people (Michael York, Richard Chamberlain, etc.), do you want to guess who plays the part of Oliver Cromwell? Alan Howard. You can be sure that is not a coincidence.
https://twitter.com/MrGoldstein7/status/1457633484311130112?s=20
We can be sure that John Foxe (b. 1517) was related to the later George Fox (b. 1624), who founded the Quakers. They both have the same stench on them. There are no Foxe in the peerage, telling me they added the “e” at the end to throw us off. But there are over 1,000 Fox.
George's father Christopher was a wealthy weaver, meaning a Jew. In the time of George Fox, the peerage Foxes were related to the Blayneys, Barons of Monaghan; Moores, Viscounts of Drogheda; and Loftuses, Viscounts of Ely.
They were also related to the Comptons, Earls of Northampton, which links us in the time of John Foxe to the Sackvilles, Noels, Cliffords, Spencers and Beaumonts. See above, where the Beaumonts link us to the Lancasters and Stanleys.
Also see William Fox of the peerage—a contemporary of John Foxe—whose son Sir Stephen Fox managed Charles II's household. He later became Lord Commissioner of the Treasury. Sir Stephen's son became a Fox-Strangways and Earl of Ilchester.
His other son became Baron Holland and married a Lennox, daughter of the Duke of Richmond. See just above, where John Foxe lived in the house of the Duke of Richmond. Also Buckingham's daughter married a Lennox.
https://twitter.com/MrGoldstein7/status/1457606836060708872?s=20
Different Richmonds and Lennoxes, yes, but all allies of the Stanleys.
For more on the Foxes here:
https://twitter.com/MrGoldstein7/status/1457175377596403714?s=20
What a lot of people don't know is that the Stanleys used Cromwell's rise to also destroy Catholicism in Ireland and steal large parts of the Church's wealth there. Any practice of Catholicism was banned and all priests were defrocked.
So the fact that the Royalists hid out in Ireland was the worst thing that ever happened to that island—which is saying a lot. In fact, the hiding out of Royalists may have just been a pretext, allowing for a long-planned invasion.
The mainstream now admits this about Drogheda, one of the places hit the hardest by Cromwell. Cromwell said its destruction was in revenge for the 1641 murder of Protestant settlers in Ulster. . . except that in 1641 Drogheda hadn't been held by Irish rebels.
So they couldn't have murdered any Protestant settlers. In fact, at the time Drogheda was held by strong English garrisons. So the Stanleys must have been in Drogheda for another reason.
I think think they were there to clear the area for their man Moore, a Protestant, whose son became the 1st Earl of Drogheda. We just saw him before, related to the peerage Foxes. Moore's wife was Lady Spencer, sister of the 1st Earl of Sunderland.
https://twitter.com/MrGoldstein7/status/1439381330781827072?s=20
This Spencer Earl is sold to us as a Cavalier (Royalist) who died in battle at age 22 in 1643, but the problem there is that his son, born two years earlier, somehow dodged punishment for his family's Royalist ways.
Another problem is that his wife was a Sidney and a Percy, linking him to the Dudleys, Greys, and Nevilles. All these people, including the Spencers, were “Lancastrians”, or allies of the Stanleys.
Spencer, the 2nd Earl of Sunderland, was raised a Calvinist by his mother, so it is very unlikely his father would have fought for Charles I. If he had, Cromwell would have come down on the family hard.
Instead, in 1645 he inherited all his father's titles, neither he nor his mother being inconvenienced in any way.
This confirms that the Spencers were allies of the Stanleys, and that the Moores were as well.
This confirms that the Spencers were allies of the Stanleys, and that the Moores were as well.
This tells us Drogheda and the rest of Ireland was being invaded to claim it for the Protestant aristocratic allies of the Stanleys. And again, the casualties look highly inflated, since in one account Cromwell admits that 9/10s of those captured at Drogheda were sent to Barbados
That would immediately drop the death toll by 90%, but even that story sounds manufactured. Shipping that many men to Barbados would be quite expensive, and wouldn't be profitable since they couldn't be sold as slaves.
Barbados was certainly using slaves at that time, but not Irish ones. It wasn't buying white slaves. As with burnings at the stake, selling whites into slavery as a result of these wars is a just myth, told to create fear at the time and high emotion now.
We see this on the Wikipedia pages for Cromwell and the Irish conquest, where we are told the Irish were transported as indentured servants to Bermuda and Barbados. Which just means the authors don't know what an indentured servant is, or assume you don't.
An indentured servant agrees to be a servant for a period of time in return for transport across the sea. That's what “indentured” means. So if England was transporting Irish to Barbados, it wasn't as indentured servants.
And unlike Australia later, Barbados and Bermuda didn't have room for 50,000 Irish transports. Those islands couldn't have taken that number of people, even as slaves.
Barbados wasn't settled until 1627, so in 1650 its population was far lower than now. It simply couldn't support thousands of incoming white people.
Cromwell's own death is just as fishy as that of Charles. In 1658, at age 59, Cromwell allegedly got sick from kidney stones. He died very quickly, and they admit the Venetian ambassador was very suspicious of the speed of Cromwell's death.
Although Cromwell was replaced by his son as Lord Protector, he had no support and had to resign within a few months. That is also very suspicious, since if Cromwell had support his son or other successor should as well.
Under normal circumstances, Cromwell would of course have prepared for his own death, appointing a successor. If his son was unliked and had no support in the army, he would have known that and appointed someone else, to assure continuance of all he had worked for.
But we don't see that, indicating this was all planned to bring Charles II back. The Stanleys had decided this was the time, and all Cromwell could do is step aside, letting them continue to write whatever script they wished.
Conveniently, George Monck, soon to be 1st Duke of Albemarle in 1660, was able to march directly into London and immediately begin proceedings to bring Charles II back. And who was this Monck? Well, our first clue is that his name is Jewish, of course.
Cromwell loved the Jews, even more than usual, since he is the one who conspicuously invited them back to England. They had always been there, running the country, but now they didn't have to pretend to be Gentiles (except for the nobility).
Although Cromwell knew Monck wished to restore Charles, they were “good friends”. What? To understand this, you have to back a few years.
Monck had been one of Charles I's generals, fighting in Ireland. But he was viewed as suspicious by Royalists, including the Duke of Ormonde, especially after refusing to take a Royalist oath.
To make him look like a Royalist, he was allegedly captured by Parliamentarians and put in the Tower after Charles fled. This effectively whitewashed him.
But strangely he was out in a short time (1646), and the Parliamentarians then immediately promoted him to major general. Make sense of that. If you can't, I will tell you: this just proves he was an agent of the Stanleys all along.
Monck switched sides again three years later, becoming a supporter of Charles II. A year later, he fought with Cromwell in Scotland at the Battle of Dunbar. Cromwell then promoted him again, making him Commander-in-Chief of Scotland, and later Governor.
By 1654, #Monck was back on the Royalist side, scheming to bring back Charles. Cromwell knew this, and the mainstream history admits he sent a letter to Monck in Scotland, saying,
Why didn't Cromwell order his arrest? I think you now know why: they were both agents of the Stanleys, and Cromwell knew that Monck was just playing his part.
To make this look somewhat less like a fait accompli, the Stanleys manufactured a little thing called Booth's Uprising in 1659, though it is unclear at this distance in time whether they faked it on the ground or just on paper.
Booth, 1st Baron Delamer, was a Lancastrian (agent of the Stanleys), mainly through his grandmother, who was an Egerton, daughter of the Viscount Brackley—who had been Elizabeth's Attorney General. The Queen sold him Ashridge House, one of the largest country houses in England.
He is the one who found against Devereux, Earl of Essex, in that fake rebellion. James I then appointed him Lord Chancellor and Lord High Treasurer. Anyway, in 1659 Booth allegedly moved against York with a small army at the behest of Charles II.
He was defeated by Lambert and allegedly escaped the field by dressing as a woman. Right. I guess they caught him shopping for pantyhose at Beatties.
He spent about five minutes in the Tower before returning to Parliament, where he received £10,000 and his title. He died August 8, of course. Aces and Eights. Chai.
Monck has the same family markers as Booth, since his 2great-grandfather was Arthur Plantagenet, 1st Viscount Lisle. Arthur's wife was Elizabeth Grey, and she was also a Talbot and a Ferrers. His father was King Edward IV.
You might think this would make Monck a York, but it didn't. He was a Lancaster though Elizabeth Grey, who began turning the family in that generation. It was turned in the same way by the next three marriages, although thepeerage com scrubs those women.
We do know George's mother was a Smith of Holditch in Devon, and these Smiths were related to Arundels of Trecice, Cornwall, who were also Stewarts.
The biggest clue here is that the Parliamentarians hired Monck as their Commander-in-Chief in late November, 1659. What? Even Cromwell knew Monck was a Royalist, so why would Parliament make him their top man? It makes no sense.
Again, it is perfect indication this was all planned years in advance. It is also proof that Booth's defeat was faked, since why would Parliament bother fighting against Booth and then hire Monck?
Another clue is that Lambert, Parliament's previous top man, switched over to Charles' side at this time, taking Fleetwood with him. So, the Parliamentarians are now Royalists and the Royalists are now Parliamentarians. The usual stirring of your brain, so you don't ask questions
While Monck “decided what to do”, Parliament made it easier for him by dissolving itself in the Spring of 1660. That's convenient. I am sure the Stanleys had nothing to do with that.
On April 4, as Charles' agent, Monck announced the Declaration of Breda, and the monarchy was restored.
To celebrate, a few months later Charles had Cromwell's alleged body exhumed from Westminster Abbey. He was both hanged and then beheaded. The head was exhibited on a pole outside Westminster Hall for 24 years! It wasn't Cromwell, just some stiff from the morgue, but still.
More recently Cromwell's statue in Manchester has been vandalized and Lord Adonis is calling for the removal of his statue in front of Parliament. This looks like a spin-off of the manufactured BLM protests in the US
The Governors are creating every division they can to prevent citizens from concentrating on the massive theft from worldwide treasuries that just accompanied the Coronahoax.
By the way, a head on a stick left out in the weather wouldn't last 24 years. It would be skeletonized within a short time, picked apart by birds. So I am not sure what they expect us to believe. Did they replace the head at night every few months, to keep up the charade?
Who knows. I am not the only one who has asked that question, though. The mainstream history admits many people didn't think the head was Cromwell's, or the body in the beheading, either. We are told a lot of people didn't fall for it, even at the time.
John Milton was Cromwell's biggest literary supporter in his lifetime, and has remained so. This is apropos, since Milton is also hidden in the peerage. Thepeerage com lists him as a peer, but with no dates on the main page and no links out to other Miltons.
Not even his mother and father are listed. He is also scrubbed at Wikipedia. Geni has a bit of information for us. Milton's maternal grandmother was a Melton, which is the same name, meaning his parents were first cousins.
Even weirder: she was previously married to Richard Milton “the Ranger”. Geni tells us he was the maternal grandfather of Milton, but they also list Paul Jeffreys as the maternal grandfather. So, major hijinx, as usual, 400 years after the fact.
It looks like this is to avoid admitting that Milton's mother was a Milton. They want you to think she was a Jeffreys, so that it isn't so obvious his parents were first cousins.
This also prevents you from following the lines of this Richard Milton, since he was Milton's real grandfather.
@threadreaderapp unroll
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
