(Queens Husband) Prince Philip In Hospital After Chest Pains, page 5

privacy

Pages: << 2 3 4 5 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 5 times

reply posted on 25-12-2011 @ 04:36 AM by stumason

reply to post by stevcolx

I'm sorry, I am not going to engage in a debate over David Icke theories. When I first came here, I read a lot of what he had to say and, to be fair, I started to believe to begin with simply because it made a wierd sort of sense and I was young and eager to believe in something, anything, that was out of the ordinary.

But that is only if you look at it from a certain angle with a certain pre-conceived thought process.

For example, I used to be very conspiratorial, but with age came a a degree of cynicism to these as many turned out to be false, others turned out to be blown out of all proportion and others were, to put it bluntly, stark raving bonkers. Icke falls into the last category for me, same with Alex Jones.

On the face of it, you might think they have something, but when you look at all the evidence in a non-biased light, you can see they distort things to fit their idea's, which then makes the idea seem more plausable due to the distortion that took place before.

In my mind, they are as deceptive and full of crap as the general media and that is saying something!

So, on that note, I am going to graciously bow out of debates over whether the Queen is a lizard and related subjects. We will just go round in circles at best and at worst, have a right ding-dong over something neither of us can prove conclusively without kidnapping the old dear and slicing her open.

reply posted on 25-12-2011 @ 04:45 AM by ollncasino

Originally posted by stumason
I'm sorry, I am not going to engage in a debate over David Icke theories. When I first came here, I read a lot of what he had to say and, to be fair, I started to believe to begin with simply because it made a wierd sort of sense and I was young and eager to believe in something, anything, that was out of the ordinary.

I don't believe in David Icke theories either.

On the other hand, when we look at some of the decisions made by our ruling elite, you have to wonder if it is really a bunch of lizards in charge!

reply posted on 25-12-2011 @ 04:47 AM by starchild10

Originally posted by stumason
We are actually culturally a lot closer than we would like to think

My family used to give out the main presents after Christmas Dinner on Christmas Day. Apparently I have French antecedents so maybe a French thing - who knows? So shoot me. Fact is I would rather be German than French but what does it matter anyway? Many of us in the UK are a mongrel mix. At what point do you become a bona fide Brit? It's all beyond silly.

reply posted on 25-12-2011 @ 04:52 AM by stevcolx

reply to post by stumason

I see your point. There are 2 sides to every story. Unfortunately there are multiple sides with the story of the Royals. I'm not contesting whether they are lizards or not. I'm going for the German line of debate. But in saying that I think the Reptilian agenda is more of symbolism and bloodlines.

To be honest, when it comes to Icke and his reptilians I don't think he is far off the mark. Seems a bit strange to actually agree with that theory but when you look at what the controllers of the world have been doing and manipulating the social stability of the world it is not as far fetched as it seems.

Ever see a documentary by Chris Everard called 'The Illuminati - Murdered By The Monarchy'. I'd advise anyone to watch it. Fascinating and worrying but a good watch!

reply posted on 25-12-2011 @ 05:28 AM by stumason

reply to post by starchild10

Exactly. I think anyone who lives here and adopts our general way of life (and lets be frank, the Royals are an embodiment of the archetypal "Brit") then they should be considered "British".

That said, there are wide cultural variations throughout the country, so nailing it down is impossible, which is why I get wound up by people saying the Queen is a German.

She is, at worst, a 6th generation immigrant which in anyone's book makes you pretty much a native. Her mother though was Scottish and a commoner, so even if her paternal line was German (which it isn't really) she has "British" blood and has lived the life of a "Brit".

reply posted on 25-12-2011 @ 05:37 AM by stumason

Originally posted by stevcolx
I see your point. There are 2 sides to every story. Unfortunately there are multiple sides with the story of the Royals.

Indeed and that's why I am not going to start a big war over it. I'm sure there is probably something afoot with all the worlds rich and powerful, it is human nature, but exactly what is really open to our imaginations.

Originally posted by stevcolx
I'm not contesting whether they are lizards or not. I'm going for the German line of debate. But in saying that I think the Reptilian agenda is more of symbolism and bloodlines.

Well, the German argument can be sensibily discounted once you cut away the fact most who shout about tend to be ones who have an inherent anti-Royal bias. That is fine, nobody has to like them and is free to say so, but if they do I would appreciate a logical, sensible approach, not one designed to stir up feelings as being "German" has a stigma attached to it.

Originally posted by stevcolx
To be honest, when it comes to Icke and his reptilians I don't think he is far off the mark. Seems a bit strange to actually agree with that theory but when you look at what the controllers of the world have been doing and manipulating the social stability of the world it is not as far fetched as it seems.

I don't doubt the rich and powerful pull strings, but that is why they are rich and powerful. What I do not believe is that there is a grand plan to cull the worlds people or make some evil NWO Government. There are many reasons why I don't believe this, but it would derail the thread quite a bit if I went into it. That said, I would be happy to engage a sensible debate over it in the appropriate thread.

Originally posted by stevcolx
Ever see a documentary by Chris Everard called 'The Illuminati - Murdered By The Monarchy'. I'd advise anyone to watch it. Fascinating and worrying but a good watch!

No, unfortunately I don't have much time these days for any documentary, what with Kids, the missus, Skyrim and Star Wars:The Old Republic... I may try to make some time to seek this one out though, especially if you did wish to debate the matter.

reply posted on 25-12-2011 @ 05:38 AM by stevcolx

reply to post by stumason

The Queen's mother was not a commoner.

Born into a family of Scottish nobility as The Honourable Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, she became Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon when her father inherited the Earldom of Strathmore and Kinghorne in 1904. She came to prominence in 1923 when she married Albert, Duke of York, the second son of King George V and Queen Mary. As Duchess of York, she – along with her husband and their two daughters Elizabeth and Margaret – embodied traditional ideas of family and public service.[2] She undertook a variety of public engagements, and became known as the "Smiling Duchess" because of her consistent public expression

Queen Elizabeth - The Queen Mother

reply posted on 25-12-2011 @ 05:50 AM by stumason

reply to post by stevcolx

Technically, she was as legally she had nothing to inherit and was born as a commoner . She was only styled "Lady" upon her father inheriting the Earldom.

Now, I know that in the general sense, she was part of the "nobility" due to her relations, but on her own she was not nobility. Tto put it into context, I am not nobility but my lineage does contain nobility from both England and Ireland. I am a commoner, just with blood ties.

It's all to do with inheritance rules as to whether you are or aren't. If you look at any noble House, there will be members with no title and no inheritance who are "commoners". There will also be people who may have a Prince or King as an ancestor, but are still "commoners". A good example of people who are legally "commoners" would be Princess Anne's or Princess Alexandra's children. They have no title and nothing to inherit (although in the case of Anne's children, they are in line to the Throne but so far down the list it would take some horrible disaster to make them next in line)

It's all very confusing...

From the same Wiki page:

Prince Albert, Duke of York – "Bertie" to the family – was the second son of George V. He initially proposed to Elizabeth in 1921, but she turned him down, being "afraid never, never again to be free to think, speak and act as I feel I really ought to".When he declared he would marry no other, his mother, Queen Mary, visited Glamis to see for herself the girl who had stolen her son's heart. She became convinced that Elizabeth was "the one girl who could make Bertie happy", but nevertheless refused to interfere.At the same time, Elizabeth was courted by James Stuart, Albert's equerry, until he left the prince's service for a better paid job in the American oil business.

In February 1922, Elizabeth was a bridesmaid at the wedding of Albert's sister, Princess Mary, to Viscount Lascelles.The following month, Albert proposed again, but she refused him once more.Eventually, in January 1923, Elizabeth agreed to marry Albert, despite her misgivings about royal life. Albert's freedom in choosing Elizabeth, legally a commoner though the daughter of a peer, was considered a gesture in favour of political modernisation; previously, princes were expected to marry princesses from other royal families.

reply posted on 25-12-2011 @ 06:28 AM by paperface

Todays news said the Queen will not be visiting him today!

Selfish mare....even Zara andher cheating husband are going.

reply posted on 25-12-2011 @ 06:37 AM by stumason

Originally posted by paperface
Todays news said the Queen will not be visiting him today!

Selfish mare....even Zara andher cheating husband are going.

The Queen went yesterday, which is actually quite surprising as they tend not to visit relatives in hospital because they know the problems such a visit can create for a busy ward, which goes to show how much she was worried and also how much their lives are controlled by protocol and being told whehn and where they can do things. Not only that, but she has traditional obligations to undertake today.

I think it is wholly unfair of you to call her a "selfish mare".

reply posted on 25-12-2011 @ 06:40 AM by paperface

A little mean yes,she is beyond reproach I quess.

My father was awarded an mbe in 1985 we went to the palace, she seemed tiny somehow.

Although I do think the Princess Diana flag debacle changed many peoples views.

edit on 25-12-2011 by paperface because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 25-12-2011 @ 06:50 AM by stumason

Originally posted by paperface
A little mean yes,she is beyond reproach I quess.

She certainly isn't, but lets be fair, hey? Throughout her life she has come across as a caring person.

Originally posted by paperface
My father was awarded an mbe in 1985 we went to the palace, she seemed tiny somehow.

Congrats to him! And yes, she is rather small, only 5`4". She is in her 80's though, all old people shrink

Originally posted by paperface
Although I do think the Princess Diana flag debacle changed many peoples views

It did to an extent, but it also made people care a lot more about Wills and Harry. I think in recent years even charles has redeemed himself and I personally do not see any advantage for the Royals to bump off Diana nor why they would do that to the mother of the two boys who have always had the publics affection. It seems far, far to risky a thing to try and pull off so I tend to believe this was simply a nasty car crash, but I do suspect there may be some smaller details we're not being told.....

reply posted on 25-12-2011 @ 04:27 PM by Lozzo

I quite like the old bugger, in a world and society where you only open your mouth to change feet, some of his comments are comedy gold. I *adore* dry sarcasm, and Phil the Greek excells in it.

Not to mention hundreds of public engagements, the trust he rather modesty (or truthfully) admits he is happy to be the head of but, compared to the rest of the organisation he does not do much work towards it, so does not like to claim too much credit, and his tireless support of the WWF (That's the World Wildlife Fund, not wrestling, BTW...)

I love that virus quote of his by the way, I couldn't put it better myself.

I just wonder what it would be like to be reincarnated in an animal whose species had been so reduced in numbers than it was in danger of extinction. What would be its feelings toward the human species whose population explosion had denied it somewhere to exist... I must confess that I am tempted to ask for reincarnation as a particularly deadly virus.

reply posted on 25-12-2011 @ 05:49 PM by MRedfield

reply to post by stumason

Star for you, outstanding post.

Nothing like seeing a thread full of people claiming a person is horrible, and then seeing those same people wish harm or death upon said person.

Edit-

Just read the entire thread, you're spot-on in every regard. Even I'm learning new things about them that I never knew.

edit on 25-12-2011 by MRedfield because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 27-12-2011 @ 01:33 PM by woogleuk

Good news, he has left hospital in high spirits, sorry haters.

reply posted on 5-1-2012 @ 04:52 PM by Solomons

reply to post by stumason

I agree with the other poster that all your points have been spot on, unlike you i don't like the monarchy, but they cost pennies compared to many others things taxes go towards and are much more important to discuss. Oh and i definitely think you should make your NWO thread, you are a great writer and it will make for a lively debate considering most members believe it to some degree.

reply posted on 7-1-2012 @ 12:23 AM by XXXN3O

reply to post by stumason

So, if you had chest pains you'd think you'd be on a waiting list at A&E? I can guarantee that if you had the same symptoms, and ambulance would whisk you off to Hospital within 10 minutes and you'd be in surgery as quick as he was. Usual bollocks being spouted on ATS without any thought as to whether it's true or not.

I have experienced chest pains for the last year actually to the point I cannot breathe at times. I have even called an ambulance which took over an hour to arrive (only once when it was worse than it normally is of course, normal being throbbing chest pain).

I have still not been diagnosed as my blood pressure is normal, pulse normal, fat levels normal, weight normal etc, yet I have severe chest pains at times. Doctors (both GP's and hospital) refuse to pursue my case because I am not above thirty and therefore not at risk of a heart attack according to the textbook education. The last piece of advice I was given by the NHS was to simply bear the chest pains and if my lips go blue, call an ambulance. I would be dead by the time the ambulance arrives like my grandmother was with a heart attack when her lips did the same.

Clearly you are on one of your rant's again and do not have a clue what you are talking about.

I stand by my comment and I sometimes wonder what planet you live on to be honest as the stuff that spews from your mouth is nothing but presumptious garbage at times on the threads, you also comment in a way that it does not alert anyone, which is why I did not even notice your reply until now. Do not get me wrong, I agree with you at times, but you are taking the biscuit with your reply to my post within this specific thread.