Tag Archives: Queen


Republished by Blog Post Promoter

The Queen of England is the “divine” embodiment of The Church and The State:  The Big Priest and The Big Politician combined!  (What a bargain, huh?)

The divine right of kings, (and QUEENS)  or divine-right theory of kingship, is a political and religious doctrine of royal and political legitimacy. It asserts that a monarch is subject to no earthly authority, deriving his right to rule directly from the will of God. The king is thus not subject to the will of his people, the aristocracy, or any other estate of the realm, including (in the view of some, especially in Protestant countries) the Church. According to this doctrine, only God can judge an unjust king. The doctrine implies that any attempt to depose the king or to restrict his powers runs contrary to the will of God and may constitute a sacrilegious act.

The remote origins of the theory are rooted in the medieval idea that God had bestowed earthly power on the king, just as God had given spiritual power and authority to the church, centering on the pope. The immediate author of the theory was Jean Bodin, who based it on the interpretation of Roman law. With the rise of nation-states and the Protestant Reformation, the theory of divine right justified the king’s absolute authority in both political and spiritual matters. The theory came to the fore in England under the reign of James I of England (1603–1625, also James VI of Scotland 1567–1625). Louis XIV of France (1643–1715), though Catholic, strongly promoted the theory as well.

The “Divine Right” of royalty is bestowed during the coronation ceremony while the monarch is perched on a throne which houses the “STONE OF DESTINY“.  In origin, the Stone is believed to have been “Jacob’s Pillow”, referring to the Biblical story in which Jacob falls asleep on a stone and has a dream in which he sees angels descend and ascend to Heaven. It is during this mystical appearance that he utters the phrase: “How terrible is this place! This is none other then the house of the Lord and this is the gate of heaven.”

One tradition states that the stone Jacob used as a pillow at Bethel was then set up as a pillar and anointed with oil and that later, it became the pedestal of the Ark in the Temple of Solomon in Jerusalem. But that is just one strand of the legend.

Jacob’s story is also very similar to Wolfram von Eschenbach’s description of the Grail Stone… and it is not the only parallel. For one, Wolfram’s account speaks of a mythical stone, set somewhere on Earth, and equally links it with the ascent and descent of the angels. He also sees this Grail Stone as part of the Covenant between Mankind and God, not unlike the Jewish Ark of the Covenant. And it was this Ark that was the expression of the unity of the Jewish tribes, and their special bond with God.

The British Queen or King is, of course, even without the Stone, one of the few remaining heads of State that is also the Head of the Church. And thus, the Stone, whether real or merely symbolic, continues to play a key role in a tradition of sacred kingship, which in the 21st century has become extremely rare.  (Phillip Coppens)

If you are dim-witted enough to fall for all this “Divine” monarch baloney, you deserve what you get:  perpetual economic slavery, treachery, villainy and ruin.

God Save Us From The Queen!  

(for more details visit The Daily Mash —  http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/ )


Republished by Blog Post Promoter

Artistic Mythology incorrectly attributes the statement, “Beware of artists….” to Queen Victoria.  Artists often consider themselves to be “revolutionaries” whom the wealthy and powerful “royalty” of Earth should fear.  So, they adopted this statement as a “battle cry” against tyranny of the state and persecution of the “artist”.

Factually, Queen Elizabeth,  did not make this statement, although she most likely shared the sentiment with her Uncle, King Leopold II of Belgium, who expressed it in a similar statement (below).   In reality, artists are seldom revolutionaries, and are the most likely to be paid whores and propagandists in service of  the “royal agenda”.  For example, how many Hollywood films have you seen that are threatening  to the rich and powerful, much less “revolutionary”?  (Answer = 0 )


(Leopold II — King of Belgium,  like Queen Victoria, were members of the self-appointed “royal family” who are Caucasian, Fascist, Imperialists.   Unfortunately, they are worshiped by the peasants, and glorified by artists, who empower them to invade, murder and enslave other people, life forms, property and natural resources of Earth for personal financial gain, power and control.)


Leopold II (9 April 1835 – 17 December 1909) was the King of the Belgians, and is chiefly remembered for the founding and exploitation of the Congo Free State.  

Queen Victoria (24 May 1819 – 22 January 1901) was the monarch of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and Empress of India from 20 June 1837 until her death.

A letter to Queen Victoria of England  from her Uncle, The King of the Belgians, 10th October 1845:

“My Dearest Victoria, —

. . . All you say about our dear Albert, whom I love like my own child, is perfectly true. The attacks, however unjust, have but one advantage, that of showing the points the enemy thinks weakest and best calculated to hurt. This , being the case, Anson, without boring A. with daily accounts which in the end become very irksome, should pay attention to these very points, and contribute to avoid what may be turned to account by the enemy. To hop to escape censure and calumny is next to impossible, but whatever is considered by the enemy as a fit subject for attack is better modified or avoided. The dealings with artists, for instance, require great prudence; they are acquainted with all classes of society, and for that very reason dangerous; they are hardly ever satisfied, and when you have too much to do with them, you are sure to have des ennuis  (trouble) . . .Your devoted Uncle,Leopold R.”    (excerpt from “The Letters of Queen Victoria, a Selection from Her Majesty’s Correspondence Between the Years 1837 and 1861″)