Antichrist 2012: Will Prince William be King of the World?

Originally posted by stumason

Originally posted by Soshh

Originally posted by stumason
His full title, however, is His Royal Highness Prince William Arthur Philip Louis, Duke of Cambridge, Earl of Strathearn, Baron Carrickfergus, Royal Knight Companion of the Most Noble Order of the Garter, Master of Arts.

The Dark Arts?!

This thread is hilarious.

That, I believe, is the title he has got for his degree. Nothing esoteric about it at all.

A Master of Arts in Scotland can refer to an undergraduate academic degree in humanities and social sciences awarded by the ancient universities of Scotland – the University of St Andrews, the University of Glasgow, the University of Aberdeen and the University of Edinburgh, while the University of Dundee and Heriot-Watt University also award this degree as a consequence of their history, with the University of Dundee having a history of being a constituent college of the University of St Andrews. Undergraduate MAs are also awarded, with several material differences, by the other ancient universities in the British Isles: Oxford, Cambridge and Dublin

Yeah I was taking the piss but thanks for the info!

reply to post by Soshh


Yeah, i knew you knew..

But given the comments so far and the subject matter up for discussion, I thought I would clarify

Imagine if everyone was like yey william king of the world sucking up to him, and it turned out to be harry man I'd be pissed off. Charles would be pissed off because its not his real son lmao YEY WILLIAM... or harry???

reply to post by stumason


I guess the facts are important... to some more than others. As much as I would have liked to have opened a can of worms with that one!

Prince Willaims who?

Please be advised that the sun no longer never sets on an English domain.

Someplace, in the Colonies, In India, In Africa, someplace, England became not so important to put it mildly.

reply to post by Aliensun


British, mate, British. It wasn't just "the English"...

That's like blaming all of America's ill's on people from New Jersey...

And I think you'll find that we still have possesions dotted around the globe, so it could be said still the "sun never sets" as we have possesions and dependancies in the Carribbean Sea, plus the Atlantic, Indian and Pacific Oceans.

Also, being the one of the worlds top economies and 3rd Largest military spender, I still think we're more important than you allude to

And when a 3rd of the worlds population tune in to watch the Wedding, I think it is probably just you who has not heard of Prince William.

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

Whilst you are largely correct in saying that their "power" is constrained, it isn't by any Law or other Act of Parliament and isn't set in stone.

That is completely false - the first act constraining the monarch was the Bill of Rights in 1689, and then the Act of Settlement 1701.

The courts have also upheld the inability of hte crown to act as he or she seems fit - eg see en.wikipedia.org... where a governemnt tried to use Royal Prerogative to effectively alter statute.

The Queen has the power to act as she see's fit,

As abovde - that is compltely incorrect.

but it would trigger a constitutional crisis if she did, as you correctly allude to. The behaviour of the Monarch is entirely governed by precedent and process, not by any legal framework.

She is governed by such laws as govern her - starting with the bill of rights and its successors.....

The Queen can, if she so desired, dissolve Parliament at her discression. There was alot of talk in 2007 and 2008 she may actually do that to unseat the (unelected) Gordon Brown who was deeply unpopular and was seen as one of the persons responsible for the economic trouble.

Inded there was a lot of talk - which is competely irrelevant. She couldnt' dismiss him, didn't try, and it was only the "chattering classes" who thought is possible.

The Military swear allegiance and for the most part, are a damned site more loyal to the Queen than they are the Politicians. In 1976, the UK came very close to a Military coup because of the actions of PM Howard Wilson. The Queens Uncle, Lord Louis Mountbatten, was touted a possible leader of this plot.

There was talk and nothing more - your assertion that it was very close is nothing more than typical ATS hyperbole - and it was 1974, not 1976 - en.wikipedia.org...

A link....

The Mirror???

That said, the Queen did dissolve the Australian Parliament in the 1975 (good decade for constitutional crisis) due to a crisis within the Government where budgets couldn't be passed and they faced votes of no confidence. The Governor General dissolved the Parliament and forced elections, which the Australian PM had no power to stop and did not request. However, I believe this was seen in Australia as a necessary act to perform as their Government was going belly up.

As you say it was the Governor-General and not the Queen, and the dismissal of the parliament was completely within the terms of section 64 of hte Australian constitutional Act, which read, in part:

The Governor-General may appoint officers to administer such departments of State of the Commonwealth as the Governor-General in Council may establish. Such officers shall hold office during the pleasure of the Governor-General.

- so the monarch (through the GG) was acting in accordance with legislation.

Yes the Ausies decided they didn't like that and removed it....so yet again the monarch is constrained by statute.

So, the power is still there and in the "colonies" too,

Uh...no......

1/ The power to act "as she liked" was as defined by statute, and
2/ that statute has been changed - it now reads (in part):

The Governor-General may appoint officers to administer such departments of State of the Commonwealth as the Governor-General in Council may establish.

- the "governor-General in council" is the GG + the cabinet - ie the PM and ministers, so the monarch, through the GG, is, as always, bound by the legislation.

Extracts are from www.legislation.gov.uk...

also see www.justice.gov.uk... for official discussion of the prerogatives, their limits, reviews, etc., which specifically notes from section 30 the rights of the courts to examine them against legislation dating as far back as the Bill of Rights Act.

reply to post by Savorrow


I don't know one person who cares about this, I would think the Anti-Christ would be a little more dinner fodder...
King of the World, really? I would say Michael Jackson would be a better contender, If he was still alive of course.

So wait....

His bloodline can be traced back to the biblical House of David, and possibly Jesus himself, as well to the historical figure remembered as Satan.

... Who exactly is this historical figure remembered as Satan?

"Satan" is a fallen angel (if even that), not a historical person.
And plus, there have been many historical figures who've been remembered as Satan. Like Nero and Hitler to name two of 'em.

Originally posted by yahushuasaves
reply to post by Savorrow

 

Daniel 11:37 "Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all."

Prince William cannot possibly be the Antichrist. The people of the world would not accept a figure like him to be their savior or god. Now if he was a spiritual leader or "teacher" then people would be more inclined to accept him. He (William) may be a satanist of some sort or occultist but not Antichrist. Note the above Scripture says Antichrist will not have the desire for women. If anything he will seek to lead the world astray to worship him and Satan, and make himself out to be a god. He may even lead a New Age movement of self-divinity to the masses, while all the while simply lying and demanding worship under a strict brutal spiritual one world order.

Well put... I think an anti-christ would be a well spoken leader among men whom other leaders would look to for advice and he would be someone the people have become enlightened by for his appeal and ability to solve worldly problems. He will be someone who comes upon the world scene with a new approach that will be appealing to the masses worldwide. He has not to be good looking or either famous in his infancy. He will be someone who gains respect among the masses from his ability to solve problems that no one before him has been able to solve. This will make him popular and he will benefit from this alone.

First off, seeing as I largely agreed with what you were saying and was just clarifying certain parts, you have taken a very belligerant and condescending tone in your reply. Very grown up.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
That is completely false - the first act constraining the monarch was the Bill of Rights in 1689, and then the Act of Settlement 1701.

The Bill of Rights wasn't an Act of Parliament and the Act of Settlement concerned solely the succession to the throne, so I was correct in asserting she isn't bound by an Act of Parliament.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
The courts have also upheld the inability of hte crown to act as he or she seems fit - eg see en.wikipedia.org... where a governemnt tried to use Royal Prerogative to effectively alter statute.

Wrong. That concerns Ministerial prerogative, not Royal prerogative. The Queen is still constituationally empowered to employ Royal Prerogative where she see's fit. She can dissolve Parliament when she see's fit. Granted, this hasn't been used since 1835, but it still remains one of her key powers.

She still retains the power the refuse assent to any Law presented and this too would lead to the dissolution of Parliament. It is only by convention that she will sign what is put in front of her, but she doesn't have to.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
As abovde - that is compltely incorrect.

As above, your "incorrect" is "incorrect"...

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
Inded there was a lot of talk - which is competely irrelevant. She couldnt' dismiss him, didn't try, and it was only the "chattering classes" who thought is possible.

She could and, with the backing of the people, nothing would happen. She is the first Monarch to try and be free of political bias. Her father before her was very involved in Government, very nearly refusing assent to the Third Irish Home Rule Bill and going back to further monarchs, even more so.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaulquote]
There was talk and nothing more - your assertion that it was very close is nothing more than typical ATS hyperbole - and it was 1974, not 1976 - en.wikipedia.org...

Your quite confident for someone who clearly knows nothing about it! The whole conspiracy against Wilson started in the 60's and culminated with his resignation in 1976. Had he not resigned, there was a very real possibility of a coup, given the state of the nation at the time and his perceived "pro Soviet" leanings. You seem quite naive and ill informed about this particular chapter of British history.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
The Mirror???

Wiki ???

I grabbed the first, easy to read summary of what I was on about. I didn't realise you wanted a PhD level dissertation, I was merely pointing out a period of interesting history.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
As you say it was the Governor-General and not the Queen, and the dismissal of the parliament was completely within the terms of section 64 of hte Australian constitutional Act, which read, in part:

And who does the Governor General act on behalf of?

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
- so the monarch (through the GG) was acting in accordance with legislation.

In Australia, yes. I maintained she wasn't constrained by statute in the UK. The former colonies have their own constitutional settlements, each very different.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
Yes the Ausies decided they didn't like that and removed it....so yet again the monarch is constrained by statute.

Then why did the GG retain the very powers he used after the crisis was over?

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
Uh...no......

1/ The power to act "as she liked" was as defined by statute, and
2/ that statute has been changed - it now reads (in part):

The Governor-General may appoint officers to administer such departments of State of the Commonwealth as the Governor-General in Council may establish.

- the "governor-General in council" is the GG + the cabinet - ie the PM and ministers, so the monarch, through the GG, is, as always, bound by the legislation.

As above, the former colonies have their own settlements. In the UK, she is not constrained by any any Act of Parliament, only the Bill of Rights, which is not legislation or statute law. The GG still retains the very power they had prior to the 1975 crisis in Australia.

No one will be until we see that 'blue turban" if ya know what I mean?!

How can he be king of the world? He is not even king in his own country. If he was all powerful satanic force... he is weak. He couldn't stop from going bald, you think he could stop the rebellion if it turns out he is some anti christ. He is just some rich kid. Nothing more, nothing less.

Originally posted by FOXMULDER147
Everyday on ATS you read the silliest thread imaginable, and every day a new record is set.

Fortunately, there are still sane people around. And then there are people wondering why conspiracy theorists are not taken seriously.

Do you think anyone would really bow before this inbred Nazi?

Well he (Prince William) can't be any worse than most of the in breeds that are running the world today.

He could possibly be one of the kings from Revelation 17:12- "And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast. " But there is no way he could be the antichrist.

Antichrist, or the first beast of Revelation, is both a political and religious power: Revelation 17:3, "So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns."

In prophecy, a woman is defined as a church: Jeremiah 6:2 says, "I have likened the daughter of Zion to a comely and delicate woman."

In prophecy, a beast is a ruling, or governing, power: Daniel 7:17, "These great beasts, which are four, are four kings, which shall arise out of the earth."

The first beast, or antichrist, is a WOMAN sitting on a scarlet colored BEAST. Therefore, the first beast is both a political power and a church in one entity.

Revelation 17:3, "So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns."

Having seven heads and ten horns. The seven heads, in prophecy, mean seven mountains: Revelation 17:9, "And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth."

Antichrist is a church and state conglomerate that resides, or "sitteth", on seven mountains.

Definition of the word "mountain":
moun·tain/ˈmountn/Noun
1. A large natural elevation of the earth's surface rising abruptly from the surrounding level; a large steep hill.

The antichrist is a church and state conglomerate that resides on seven hills. The Vatican is the only entity in the world that fits this description. It is the Roman Catholic Church, and it is also officially a country within itself (the smallest country in the world, in fact).

The scandals that surround the church prove Daniel 11:37 is correct when it states that antichrist will have no desire for women: "Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all."- Daniel 11:37

For a more in depth look (and to avoid posting too much on here) on this subject, I highly recommend watching the following video: www.john1429.org...

reply to post by Savorrow


hi, before the antichrist can return to earth, the new world order must first be accomplished, the 10 nations must be completed, they must follow the preparation to prepare for the arrival

On the elite member thread it was said Prince Harry is an antichrist candidate but not William. And from the description of the Antichrist in Revelation and other religious prophecy texts he will have red hair. Harry's name number is 666 whereas William's is 586

Originally posted by CodyOutlaw
The Arthurian archetype is far removed from the notion of an anti-Christ.

As for Prince William, he does not fit the criteria. The anti-Christ should come out of the middle east, scripturally speaking, most likely modern day Iraq or Syria.

I believe the False Prophet is supposed to be from the East, but not the Antichrist. They are not one in the same.