the prince was not assassinated, page 1

privacy

Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times

Topic started on 29-4-2011 @ 04:02 PM by demontigny

nostradamous predicted that there would be an assassination on the prince at his wedding.. it seems it never came true doesnt it? he said that it would be the begining of world war three so that must not be as close as everyone thought. the prophecy is now not only wrong but it starts to make everything that comes after look false.
tell me what you think..
alamongordo.com...
this is a link to the site where i read about the assassination prophecy. it states the assassination will take place when they get to west minster abby. they have not reached there yet, but the chances of killing the prince is about 1000/1 seeing as he has all those guards. one part of the prophecy is true though.. the president of the us and his wife didnt go.. let me here your thoughts please dont hate lol

reply posted on 29-4-2011 @ 04:03 PM by Xcathdra

reply to post by demontigny

I was under the impression that his predictions, Like edgar caycees, werent set in stone and could be changed. They were merely one possiblity of wht could occur if people didnt change course so to speak.

Also, the reason Obama didnt attent the wedding is because he is not Royalty. That was addressed by the Brits when people asked about it. The only heads of states who were invited were Royalty themsleves, and falls within the tradition of Royal weddings.

edit on 29-4-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 29-4-2011 @ 04:05 PM by Lionhearte

reply to post by Xcathdra

If that's the case, I predict there will be a 9.5 earthquake in southern California tomorrow.

If it doesn't happen, the future must have been changed thanks to the people.

edit on 29-4-2011 by Lionhearte because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 29-4-2011 @ 04:06 PM by demontigny

reply to post by Xcathdra

that might be but i jus wanted to point out that because of this being wrong the reason for ww3 is absent

reply posted on 29-4-2011 @ 04:06 PM by StripedBandit

Nostradamus was vague, and wrong about more than he was right.

On the other side on the coin, Harry is also a prince, and only a few years younger...Dun Dun Dun!

Another angle even: Maybe he was truly a seer of the future, but only one or many versions of POSSIBLE futures.
I don't believe that our choices don't matter.

edit on 29-4-2011 by StripedBandit because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 29-4-2011 @ 04:08 PM by Xcathdra

Originally posted by Lionhearte
reply to post by Xcathdra

If that's the case, I predict there will be a 9.5 earthquake in southern California tomorrow.

If it doesn't happen, the future must have been changed thanks to the people.
edit on 29-4-2011 by Lionhearte because: (no reason given)

Huh.. I predicted that you wouldnt post in this thread... Oh well.

@ OP - Not knocking you at all.. Just pointing out the reason Obama was not invited. I read through the source and there are some other discrepancies I notivced.

The big one is talking about the Hate group issue. They state he tells muslims to stay away from the wedding, while telling muslims to forcefully demonstrate...

kind of counter productive if you ask me..

reply posted on 29-4-2011 @ 04:08 PM by CanadianDream420

Different world lines, man..

Everytime we make a thread, it changes.

reply posted on 29-4-2011 @ 04:10 PM by Praetorius

reply to post by demontigny

I may be committing some cardinal sin of ATS here, but Nostradamus makes me crazy.

His centuries are basically just the craziest rorschach test of all time. You can dredge anything you want out of them and be nowhere close to what he might actually have been trying to say...if he was really trying to say anything instead of just sell books!

reply posted on 29-4-2011 @ 04:16 PM by babybunnies

This shouldn't be interpreted as Prince William.

The "Lesser One" would be Harry. The prophecy clearly states "the spite of the KING". Charles isn't King yet, and William definitely isn't "the lesser one".

And the interpretation should be that this is referring to The King being assassinated, not the Prince.

"Through the spite of the King supporting the lesser one, he will be murdered presenting the jewels to him".

Jewels could be medals, not a bride. The King does NOT present the bride to the Prince, the Archbishop of Canterbury does. It would be The King presenting the jewels, the prophecy clearly states the King will be assassinated, while presenting the jewels.

"The father wishes to impress nobility on the son" could be interpreted as that the lesser Son (Harry) will be present at some sort of awards ceremony where Charles is presenting medals, wanting to show Harry how it's done.

I would see an attempt at William during the wedding to be an extremely incorrect interpretation of this prophecy.

And of course, likely it has absolutely nothing to do with Charles and Harry at all. "King" could refer to any powerful man, not necessarily an actual King.

reply posted on 1-5-2011 @ 05:23 PM by Jubes

Originally posted by babybunnies
This shouldn't be interpreted as Prince William.

The "Lesser One" would be Harry. The prophecy clearly states "the spite of the KING". Charles isn't King yet, and William definitely isn't "the lesser one".

And the interpretation should be that this is referring to The King being assassinated, not the Prince.

"Through the spite of the King supporting the lesser one, he will be murdered presenting the jewels to him".

Jewels could be medals, not a bride. The King does NOT present the bride to the Prince, the Archbishop of Canterbury does. It would be The King presenting the jewels, the prophecy clearly states the King will be assassinated, while presenting the jewels.

"The father wishes to impress nobility on the son" could be interpreted as that the lesser Son (Harry) will be present at some sort of awards ceremony where Charles is presenting medals, wanting to show Harry how it's done.

I would see an attempt at William during the wedding to be an extremely incorrect interpretation of this prophecy.

And of course, likely it has absolutely nothing to do with Charles and Harry at all. "King" could refer to any powerful man, not necessarily an actual King.