CH said (May 1, 2012):

have said before Elizabeth II was not of the loins of George VI and I now know how it was done. Andrew and Edward are not of the loins of Prince Phillip either. So ,since this is true … her reign and the government is illegal and should have no power under the law. Princess Margaret was the true heir and she was spiritually killed because she did not know who she was. I believe there was a man from Toronto that claimed to be her son but we have not heard from him since his claim was going forward. The British Royals like the Masonic Fraternal order are Satanist, worshippers of Lucifer and the goal of this new world order is to wipe out the name of the Son of God the Lord Jesus Christ.

This will not happened !!! The Masons will accept any bible on their alter except the KJ , in fact their god is a Hindu god , remember Cameron’s movie Avatar? The Rothschild’ s needs a royal family to keep the people in line and Elizabeth is a Jezebel and is giving the people’s money to them. Besides that ,these churches are taking your money and you think you are giving to God ? These priests and ministers are of Satan, we as a people are building his Kingdom of darkness rather than Gods Kingdom. It is time that we all wake up and search for the truth. The Almighty is not a respecter of people, whether they are Kings or Queens , so where does this right of royalty come in , this is nothing but the folly of man. If you worship those that are Satanist are you not worshipping Satan (Lucifer) also ! Briton/commonwealth is a nation of the House of Israel and if you want to know what is coming upon you , read Ezekiel .

Diana was a real woman but she was led down the wrong path and this is sad . However, it will be worse for those that led her down that path and this is no joke. Finally , think about this … we are all going to Judged by Jah’s law and if Diana didn’t know it how could she be saved or should I say how can we be saved if we do not know ?

Munnna said (May 1, 2012):

I have just read the "Diana Was Murdered for Seeking Love" article.

The statement "Charles and Blair are open supporters of Islam" is the most absurd and ludicrous thing I have ever read. This author needs to pull his head out of his own rear end.

If Blair is giving the impression that he is a supporter of Islam then people need to understand that this is just a ploy to create further divisions and friction among the "sheeple". Giving the illusion of supporting Islam in Britains but all the while killing and maiming Muslims overseas. But Blair's ploy is obviously working.

The truth is Blair hates Islam. Blair is a bloodthirsty warmonger who loves nothing better than to spill the blood of Muslim people.

I am sure the author of this article is aware that Blair sent the British military to go and murder thousands upon thousands of Muslim innocents. But Blair is a "supporter of Islam". Right.

Rick said (May 1, 2012):

I have just read your very interesting article by David Sinclair regarding Diana's death and the British Royal Family. I feel, however, that he has missed the point. If your memory serves you, in the months leading up to Diana's death, she was, very successfully, protesting against landmines. Now a lot of people are (willfully) unaware that HM the Queen of England has shares in or, indeed, owns arms manufacturing companies, mostly based in my home city of Birmingham, England. If we were to view the British Royal family as, say, a mafia organization then it stands to reason that anyone within, or without, that organization that threatened the "Dons" ability to generate profit would be snuffed, then Diana;s death certainly makes a lot more sense.

Alden said (May 1, 2012):

In light of the Diana article oddly enough I thought of the term "Half Blood Prince" for some reason. It was the title of one of the Harry Potter series and perhaps in a way it's a nod to both/either of the Princes. Half human blood, half Royal blood? Something of that sort. I don't know enough about either the Royals or the Potter series and don't really care to, or to say anything for certain, but who knows what kind of connections that author has.

James said (May 1, 2012):

I don't think 'brides were as young as 2 years old'.i think they
could be betrothed at that age,but they didnt actually become
brides until their wedding night.people have forgotten what the
real meaning of 'marriage' and 'bride' is,since the state got
involved and pretended that divorce meant that you were no longer 'married'.

encouraging people to see the public ceremony as the wedding has served to distance people from the truth and paved the way for sodomites to claim to be able to get married and women to live in adultery,whilst claiming they are with their husband.

a man cannot become a bride and marry another man,in the same way that a man cannot breast feed a child,they simply do not have the physical part required.this has been so since before the church got involved in marriage and is why a bride can only ever be a virgin.

in india today,young girls can be betrothed at an early age but
they do not become brides until their wedding night,when they are biologically capable of producing a child from the act.

i know the royals are perverse,but there would have been uproar if the king had actually taken a 2 year old girl as his bride,in the
original and true meaning of the word.

Robert said (May 1, 2012):

Here's an interesting prediction deriving from the English intellectual elite. On April 8, 1906 Lytton Strachey wrote to John Maynard Keynes: "...our time will come about 100
years hence and everyone will be finally converted" [to believing that "the best feelings are Sodomitical"].