I have a new theory or hypothesis. Not a ton to back it or even test it, but when I think through the implications, it's the type of thing that would explain a lot.
Could there be a one-page paternity test result for Harry in that red folder?
>I doubt Harry is that important to DJ Trump.
>I think the impostor practices that UC stiff mouth to look like Charlie.
>Neither are related.
You must be new here. The implications have a ton less to do with Harry himself. It's about the legitimacy of the royal family.
The Windsor lineage is ultimately traced back to a statute about only protestant bloodlines having claim to the throne, even if there were better catholic bloodlines. You essentially have lots of various Prussian and German blood that trickled down into what are now the Windsors. That's not to say that are pro or anti German. It has more to do with the fact that the legitimacy isn't just in maintaining a connection with the Church of England. It's about actually defending christianity. Not only did they sell out during the empire for the wealth of India and smaller nations, they've also imported all these muzzies recently. Interestingly, the problematic immigrants are mostly pakis, which are kin and enemies of India, which says a lot, but I digress. If Harry is proven not to be Charles' son, then nations will crumble. It would be a lot more than just England that knew this information. Leadership around the world would be delegitimized and would be seen to cross a legal, cultural, and religious line in the name of service to power through optics. The crime? Punishing an innocent child by keeping him from his true father in the names of optics and power games. Frame it correctly, and it's a very deep grievance that people just won't accept. If we finish up the american revolution by causing one in england with a people that are already strained by the B.S. going on, then it would extend to all the other english-speaking nations and to other nations, both to those that were part of the british empire and to those that depended or continue to depend on a buddy-buddy relationship to the british system, albeit culturally, finacially, or politically. By covering for Diana, which they might think justifies her punishment, they committed an crime of enormous magnitude. It's not that rare, but in the modern world at those heights by people who claim to be bastions of goodness, it's unforgivable and cuts at the heart of the christian story, the relationship with the father and the son.
>The implications have a ton less to do with Harry himself. It's about the legitimacy of the royal family.
>The Windsor lineage is ultimately traced back to a statute about only protestant bloodlines having claim to the throne, even if there were better catholic bloodlines. You essentially have lots of various Prussian and German blood that trickled down into what are now the Windsors. That's not to say that are pro or anti German. It has more to do with the fact that the legitimacy isn't just in maintaining a connection with the Church of England. It's about actually defending christianity. Not only did they sell out during the empire for the wealth of India and smaller nations, they've also imported all these muzzies recently. Interestingly, the problematic immigrants are mostly pakis, which are kin and enemies of India, which says a lot, but I digress. If Harry is proven not to be Charles' son, then nations will crumble. It would be a lot more than just England that knew this information. Leadership around the world would be delegitimized and would be seen to cross a legal, cultural, and religious line in the name of service to power through optics. The crime? Punishing an innocent child by keeping him from his true father in the names of optics and power games. Frame it correctly, and it's a very deep grievance that people just won't accept. If we finish up the american revolution by causing one in england with a people that are already strained by the B.S. going on, then it would extend to all the other english-speaking nations and to other nations, both to those that were part of the british empire and to those that depended or continue to depend on a buddy-buddy relationship to the british system, albeit culturally, finacially, or politically. By covering for Diana, which they might think justifies her punishment, they committed an crime of enormous magnitude. It's not that rare, but in the modern world at those heights by people who claim to be bastions of goodness, it's unforgivable and cuts at the heart of the christian story, the relationship with the father and the son.
If the basis of the British legal, cultural, and religious tradition is that the innocent son is not guilty for the sins of the father, then proving Harry is not Charles' son exposes the optical coverup at the highest level as one of the deepest and most historical crimes against logos and natural law itself. All I'm asking is for people to map out the potential fallout.
>shit uh hits the fan man
>shit uh hits the fan man
Problem seems to be that if this happens in an uncontrolled way, it's probably not a good thing.
When you look at all the head of these U.S. organizations, many are more and more Indian sub-continent. Strange huh, when we're told the enemy is someone else all of the time. Even in England, oh, it's the paki muzzies! Yes, a problem, but if India has essentially attempted to take over England, then of course they would push their enemies, the pakis, into the country to redirect attention away from India. The strategy seems to be India(or the globalist powers running through it) sucking the british system dry, standing up the pakis and other MENA muzzies as the enemy, which weakens the country, delegitimizes the anglos, and waiting for the shot at the jugular. They're not ready to pull that trigger. Meanwhile, Trump creates and alternate off-ramp, so when the card is played, the US system becomes a much better alternative to the globalist off-ramp.
I think the card gets played and I think that the Windsors have acquiesced. It's all just chess moves until then.
Even the good titties need bras…time travel is hard on unkept titties.
not really arguing for or against any of this. it's about game theory now and going forward.