I’ve been thinking a lot about ‘Elizabeth I’ – who was probably really called ‘Henry Fitzroy’.

(See THIS post, if you have no idea what I’m talking about.)

First, more thoughts on that, and then, I want to take another look at what might have been going on with all these ‘slaves’ in the Spanish Empire – and also, the ‘slaves’ in the USA.

Let’s try to pin down ‘Elizabeth I the Tranny’ a bit more,

====

The question puzzling me was why would you go through such a charade like that?

To put a gay man dressed as a woman on the throne, and to pretend Henry Fitzroy was his half sister, ‘Elizabeth I’?

Having done some more reading up on what was going on at that time, this is my current proposal, set out as ‘bare bones’ as possible to make it easy to follow.

1. Before Henry VII – Henry VIII’s father – came to the throne, the British Isles had been convulsed by ‘the War of the Roses’ for more than 30  years, as two separate families of Plantagenets slugged it out to control the throne.
2. That war ended when Henry VII married Elizabeth of York – bringing the rival families together. Their children were Arthur and Henry VIII.
3. So, England had been through a terrible civil war for decades, with lots of ‘rivals for the throne’ still hanging around – and now, Henry VIII can’t sire an heir (probably because he is gay…)
4. He has four known children (that he himself acknowledged publically as being his offspring). These are:
   1. Bloody Mary – catholic, daughter of his Spanish wife Catherine of Aragon
   2. Elizabeth I – ‘proto-protestant’, daughter of Anne Boleyn (whoever she turns out to be in the end)
   3. Edward VI – strongly protestant, daughter of Jane Seymour
   4. Henry Fitzroy – gay, bastard son of Henry VIII and Elizabeth Blount, who somehow disappears off the scene the exact same year his half brother Edward VI is born.

====

Now, on top of the civil war that had just ended in the British Isles, when Henry VIII broke with the Catholic church, a ‘pseudo-religious’ aspect came into play with all the jockeying for power, too.

And let us not forget the position of the ‘marranos’ – who were liable to the Inquisition in Spanish and Portuguese realms, and also vulnerable to being ‘sent back to the Inquisition’ in Catholic realms that were not Spanish and Portuguese.

That was also a very strong motivation to find homes in countries that were un-Spanish and un-catholic.

====

Henry VIII and his son Edward VI (or at least, the people controlling all this from the shadows) were trying to prevent ‘the wrong people’ from taking the throne after they died.

So, they were passing Acts of Parliament to change the succession laws – some of those acts could have been used to legitimise Fitzroy as Henry VIII’s formal heir – but that didn’t happen in the end, because Edward VI was born.

But when Edward VI was dying, he also tried to pass Acts of Law to ensure the crown could only pass to someone of his choosing, instead of going by ‘who was next in line to the throne’ by blood.

That’s how his cousin, the protestant (puppet ruler….) Lady Jane Grey was crowned queen for just nine days, before Bloody Mary launched a rebellion, had Grey imprisoned and killed, and took over as Queen.

Mary (catholic….) married the Spanish king Phillip II, burnt 260 protestants at the stake, and ruled for five years.

====

We are told that she didn’t kill her Protestant rival to the throne and half-sister, Elizabeth I during this time.

At this stage, I think that’s bunkum.

I think that ‘Elizabeth I’ WAS killed, but it was kept secret because Mary was unpopular enough with her subjects already, and on the Protestant side of the coin, they kept it quiet because they were working on ‘the plan’ to have Elizabeth I ‘reappear’ once Mary was out the way, one way or another.

If you look at the pictures of ‘young Elizabeth’ (on the left, before she was probably killed), she looks totally different from the ‘Queen Elizabeth’ who came later, who resembles ‘Henry Fitzroy’. Look at the eyes:

The key to understanding all this is that after Bloody Mary and Elizabeth I, the next person in line to the English throne was actually the catholic Mary Queen of Scots.

So if they couldn’t produce a ‘protestant Elizabeth I’, the country was for sure headed back to catholic rule – and that was going to be a big problem for A LOT of people, at that stage, especially the nobles who had helped Henry VIII to sack all the monasteries and appropriate their wealth.

(I won’t say ‘mis-appropriate’, as all these people were bad news for the people they ruled over.)

====

This feels like a strong enough motive to find a replacement candidate of royal blood to ‘act the part’ of Elizabeth I.

It had to be someone who looked similiar enough – and who had their own reasons for keeping quiet about what was really going on.

Oh, and who would love wearing dresses and ‘queening it up’, while being able to have dalliance with handsome young men….

The ‘flamboyantly gay’ Henry Fitzroy fits the bill perfectly.

Except, he could never marry anyone because the jig would be up.

And that also explains why in spite of the desperate need to produce an heir for her kingdom, ‘Elizabeth I’ stayed single.

====

OK, so the other thing I’ve been thinking about a lot is the deal ‘Elizabeth I’ was doing with the slave traders like Casper Van Senden.

THIS is a brief snippet from Wikipedia, it’s the jumping off point, but all this is going to require a lot more unpicking.

So don’t start accusing me of being ‘Louis Farrakhan’ just because I’m questioning assumptions, to see a bit more where the truth lies. 

Casper Van Senden was a German merchant who was active in Tudor-era England during the 16th century. Born in the German city of Lübeck, he eventually moved to the English capital of London, a major port at the time.

Working as a merchant in Hanseatic League, he rose to prominence in 1596 by ensuring the safe return of 89 English subjects who were detained in the Iberian Union. This brought Van Senden to the attention of Queen Elizabeth I, as he entered her court to seek compensation.

While at the English court, Van Senden requested to transport “Blackamoores” out of the country and sell them in Portugal or Spain to compensate for the money spent freeing the 89 detainees. Some deportations of “Turks and Moors” from England were arranged at this period by Admiralty officials acting under royal authority.

====

I am still trying to feel all this out, but one line of enquiry I’m following is that at least some of the ‘black slaves’ who ended up in the USA colonies actually came from England, and not Africa…

While the official historians are keen to say ‘nothing came of this’ – they are also puzzled as to why Casper Van Senden continued liberating English prisoners of war – apparently, 289 of them – at great personal expense, if his deal to deport ‘blackamoores’ out of England and sell them as slaves in Lisbon didn’t actually happen.

This comes from HERE:

The Van Senden episode has been interpreted as a piece of racist immigration policy, indicating Elizabeth’s desire for the ‘preservation of the white race’ and compared in scale to the expulsion of the Jews by Edward I in 1290.

However it was of an entirely different nature. While in 1290 Edward’s government made a tidy profit by collecting the Jews’ debts on their behalf and selling their houses, no one managed to make much money in 1596-1601.

Edward’s edict had banished all Jews, giving them safe conduct on the condition they left the country by a certain date. Elizabeth had no such universal intention, merely making a local bargain with a persistent merchant, on an individual basis.

The ‘blackamoor’ project was just one of the many scandalous proposals made by merchants and courtiers in the later part of her reign with an eye (if a somewhat short-sighted one) for profit.

====

Personally, I’m not so convinced.

We know they were lying about everything…. this just doesn’t ring true.

And it’s based on the idea that the only ‘blackamoores’ in England at this time was slaves, which I’m also increasingly coming to the conclusion is false.

Someone sent me THIS, it’s Benjamin Franklin’s ‘Observations on the Increase of Mankind’, written in 1751.

Take a look yourself, it’s not a long document. This is the bit that particularly caught my eye, at least for this post:

Which leads me to add one Remark: That the Number of purely white People in the World is proportionably very small. All Africa is black or tawny. Asia chiefly tawny. America (exclusive of the new Comers) wholly so.

And in Europe, the Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians and Swedes, are generally of what we call a swarthy Complexion; as are the Germans also, the Saxons only excepted, who with the English, make the principal Body of White People on the Face of the Earth.

I could wish their Numbers were increased. And while we are, as I may call it, Scouring our Planet, by clearing America of Woods, and so making this Side of our Globe reflect a brighter Light to the Eyes of Inhabitants in Mars or Venus, why should we in the Sight of Superior Beings, darken its People?

Why increase the Sons of Africa, by Planting them in America, where we have so fair an Opportunity, by excluding all Blacks and Tawneys, of increasing the lovely White and Red? But perhaps I am partial to the Complexion of my Country, for such Kind of Partiality is natural to Mankind.

====

That he’s a white supremacist is old news.

What particularly took my eye is his description of where all these ‘black’ and ‘tawney’ people lived in great numbers, including:

All Africa is black or tawny. 

Asia chiefly tawny. 

America (exclusive of the new Comers) wholly so.

And in Europe, the Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians and Swedes, are generally of what we call a swarthy Complexion; as are the Germans also….

====

Spaniards and Italians, maybe…. But since when were Russians, Swedes and Germans known for their ‘swarthy’ complexions?!

Yet again, something very strange is going on here.

While you are pondering all this – have a look at this video, (mildy not shmirat eynayim friendly) which starts to make the case that the Native ‘copper-coloured’ residents of the USA were steadily reclassified as being ‘black’ over a few decades, for a few reasons including:

1. To force them to start paying taxes to ‘USA Corp’.
2. To take away their land ownership rights, which could then be scooped up by the ‘newcomers’.

====

I’m not saying this is definitely true, at this stage, I’m just saying it’s interesting….

The quote about ‘copper-coloured’ people really jumped out at me, given the Rav’s comments about ‘Joachim Gans’ and how his expertise in ‘copper’ catapulted the British Isles to the top of the economic chain, during the reign of Elizabeth I…. these are all clues.

Here’s that snippet from the Rav again:

Now, I read that there was a Jew called ‘Chazan’ [possibly Chalfan?] in the year 1500, who was an expert in copper – the greatest in all the world!

And he was successful, and he raised England up to the highest level of ‘copper’.

He knew how to mine copper, to mine the best, because copper was more important than iron – you can make everything from it. All the British ships were built using copper, and the Spanish ships were built using iron.

This is an excerpt from the original Websters Dictionary:

====

And the bit that is also really interesting me is how all this connects up to the false science of ‘Eugenics’, began by Charles Darwin’s descendants off the back of that guy’s book that was called (to give it it’s full title):

On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life

I bolded the bit that’s usually left off, these days, because can you guess who those ‘favored races’ are, boys and girls?

More on Darwin, and his racist, genocide-promoting ‘pseudoscience’ another time.

====

In the meantime, let’s leave you with this, a short but somewhat boring video that makes the case that taxation is a big part of this story:

====

Here’s the video description, which basically saves you having to watch it:

The de facto U.S. Corporation created the “U.S. Citizen” to be a debt slave.

BUT our 1787 ORIGINAL Constitution FOR the United States Corporation clearly states that INDIANS are “not taxed”.

In our video today we will see that our Indian ancestors were here BEFORE the U.S.Corporation committed the Geneva Convention capital crime of inland piracy in 1868 (not 1865 pardon) by turning SOVEREIGN INDIGENOUS into U.S. Citizens!

To note: the Geneva Convention took place in 1949 so the 1868 crime went & continues un-checked until American Indians officially reclaim our SOVEREIGNTY! Because once again we were here BEFORE 1868 …if we were here BEFORE 1868 U.S. Citizens creation and we were NOT “foreign born” then what does that make us?

Again we were and still are by BLOODLINE a SOVEREIGN people on our beloved & much coveted homeland America!

Let’s take a quick look at how the Census record PROVES this!

====

‘Indians’ weren’t taxed and actually owned land in the USA…. but ‘blacks’, ‘coloured’, ‘mulatto’ – and all the other labels that suddenly appeared on the US census (which didn’t include the word ‘Indian’, and in some places even made it illegal for someone to use that word….) didn’t have these same rights.

When you start to follow the money here, more and more possibilities begin to come into view.

====

I’m not pushing things one way or another at this point, just continuing to collect the information together, and to see what conclusions all this points to.

As I said earlier, the one definite here (apart from death and taxation) is that they are lying about everything.

That bit is easy.

But trying to figure out the truth…. is really, really hard.

So, all input and ideas and additional information are welcome!

TBC

====

UPDATE:

On the waybackmachine HERE, you can still see a link on the Justia website which refers to the Lenape Tribe of ‘American Indians’ as being historically known as ‘Moors’.

Screenshot:

====

I have to say, this is getting more and more interesting.

===

You might also like this article: