,JUST THE START === EXCERPT
I now think Henry didn't divorce Catherine of Aragon in pursuit of a son. As we just saw with Blount and Fitzroy, in a pinch Henry could have always forced Parliament to legitimize one of his bastards. He was just 36 when he began fighting with the Pope, so he should have had plenty of time and stamina to be siring more children. There was absolutely no reason for the desperation, so we know the story we have been told is false. It is just the usual cover story. The truth is, the Stanleys behind Henry wanted to break with Rome, and they used this Catherine of Aragon divorce story to create the necessary rift. Their goal was to steal all ecclesiastical wealth in the British Isles from Rome, and the most efficient way to do that was to dredge up the old Investiture Controversy, cloaking it with this alleged need for a divorce. The divorce was just the excuse they needed to drive the Catholics out and steal billions of dollars worth of land, gold and silver, art, and tithes. You can tell that from the rapidity with which they proceeded, for in just a few years Henry had already seized all Church property in England, with the express consent of Parliament (Act of Supremacy). We are supposed to believe that was a natural outcome of the divorce controversy, caused simply by Henry's anger, but as you see it was much more likely to be a planned outcome, craftily staged from the start. Not only did England want Rome to refuse consent, I have shown you before that Rome was probably in on it as well, receiving a large kickback. How could Rome be in on its own rape? Because Rome had been infiltrated as well. The Pope at the beginning of the controversy was Clement VII, whose real name was Giulio de' Medici. Amazingly, if you go to the Wikipedia page for Dissolution of the Monasteries, Clement's name is not on the page once, proving they don't want you to see what I am showing you. The Medicis were billionaire Jews from Florence, and they were southern cousins of the Stanleys, who were Komnenes. The next Pope, Paul III, was a Farnese, and as such was also a cousin and puppet of the de' Medicis. So it looks like the Komnenes and Medicis allied in this controversy, having their people on both sides. This allowed them to manage the entire pillaging of the British Isles in those decades. They had just completed a similar pillaging in Germany in the preceding decades, and it had gone off like a charm, so they were already well practiced in this deceit. Even in England, they had been practicing for this for centuries. Henry V, a Lancastrian grandson of John of Gaunt, had already taken many monasteries in the 1400s, using the old Avignon schism as his excuse. Tellingly, the Popes in Rome had also been in cahoots with Henry V in that seizure, as well as previous seizures of “foreign, French” monasteries by Edward I and Edward III in the 1300s. The monasteries seized at that time in England were said to be allied to the Avignon popes, and therefore French, so the popes in Rome supported their seizure by English kings, no doubt receiving a percentage.
A snippet from Miles Mathis' devastatingly brilliant critique and research findings
I now think Henry didn't divorce Catherine of Aragon in pursuit of a son. As we just saw with Blount and Fitzroy, in a pinch Henry could have always forced Parliament to legitimize one of his bastards. He was just 36 when he began fighting with the Pope, so he should have had plenty of time and stamina to be siring more children. There was absolutely no reason for the desperation, so we know the story we have been told is false. It is just the usual cover story. The truth is, the Stanleys behind Henry wanted to break with Rome, and they used this Catherine of Aragon divorce story to create the necessary rift. Their goal was to steal all ecclesiastical wealth in the British Isles from Rome, and the most efficient way to do that was to dredge up the old Investiture Controversy, cloaking it with this alleged need for a divorce. The divorce was just the excuse they needed to drive the Catholics out and steal billions of dollars worth of land, gold and silver, art, and tithes. You can tell that from the rapidity with which they proceeded, for in just a few years Henry had already seized all Church property in England, with the express consent of Parliament (Act of Supremacy). We are supposed to believe that was a natural outcome of the divorce controversy, caused simply by Henry's anger, but as you see it was much more likely to be a planned outcome, craftily staged from the start. Not only did England want Rome to refuse consent, I have shown you before that Rome was probably in on it as well, receiving a large kickback. How could Rome be in on its own rape? Because Rome had been infiltrated as well. The Pope at the beginning of the controversy was Clement VII, whose real name was Giulio de' Medici. Amazingly, if you go to the Wikipedia page for Dissolution of the Monasteries, Clement's name is not on the page once, proving they don't want you to see what I am showing you. The Medicis were billionaire Jews from Florence, and they were southern cousins of the Stanleys, who were Komnenes. The next Pope, Paul III, was a Farnese, and as such was also a cousin and puppet of the de' Medicis. So it looks like the Komnenes and Medicis allied in this controversy, having their people on both sides. This allowed them to manage the entire pillaging of the British Isles in those decades. They had just completed a similar pillaging in Germany in the preceding decades, and it had gone off like a charm, so they were already well practiced in this deceit. Even in England, they had been practicing for this for centuries. Henry V, a Lancastrian grandson of John of Gaunt, had already taken many monasteries in the 1400s, using the old Avignon schism as his excuse. Tellingly, the Popes in Rome had also been in cahoots with Henry V in that seizure, as well as previous seizures of “foreign, French” monasteries by Edward I and Edward III in the 1300s. The monasteries seized at that time in England were said to be allied to the Avignon popes, and therefore French, so the popes in Rome supported their seizure by English kings, no doubt receiving a percentage.
A snippet from Miles Mathis' devastatingly brilliant critique and research findings
