As usual, this is just my opinion, based on personal research.

I should probably preface this by listing my previous religious affiliations.

My family was originally Methodist.

We attended the First Methodist Church of Lubbock, TX, until I was about eight.

My mother got crossways with someone there, although I don't know the full story.

My impression is that she thought the place was snooty, so we moved to the First United Methodist Church, which was far smaller and less wealthy.

It operated on a shoestring, and my mother was involved in its administration in a small way.

I remember she got me involved making signs at about age 12.

I asked her why they couldn't make their own signs, and she told me,

That stuck in my head.

We left the church a couple of years later, but again I am not sure why.

I think it was because a neighborhood friend was pastor at the Presbyterian church, so we decided to go with him.

My impression was that the Methodists and Presbyterians weren't greatly different, both being “moderate” Protestants, as opposed to the Baptists and Church of Christ people, who were definitely more conservative.

We spent a few years there, but before I graduated from high school we had quit going to church altogether.

They had driven out our friend as pastor, I think for being too progressive (I could be wrong, I didn't pay close attention because I didn't really care), and we just never bothered to find another church.

I mention this history because it actually conflicts with my findings in this paper.

Given that background you would expect I would be pro-Presbyterian and maybe anti-Catholic to some degree.

But I am not and never was.

I never chose sides based on doctrine, or for any other reasons, so I came into this paper with no irons in the fire.

I found myself choosing the Catholic side in this paper, and you will see why.

It has nothing to do with doctrine.

The Presbyterians came up in my last paper, so I dug around a bit in their history.

Isaac Newton – Library of Rickandria

Presbyterianism was founded around 1560 by John Knox, above.

Or that is what they want you to think he looked like.

But that look was stolen from Leonardo.

Knox actually looked nothing like that.

We just saw a similar thing with Newton a few days ago, where they later faked a painting of him to make him look like a swashbuckling Gentile.

John Knox (c. 1514 – 24 November 1572) was a Scottish minister, Reformed theologian, and writer who was a leader of the country's Reformation. He was the founder of the Presbyterian Church of Scotland.

So, I guess you know where I am going with this already.

Do they make this easy or what?

You really have to laugh.

I don't think he could look more Jewish if he tried.

Also notice he is conspicuously missing a cross around his neck.

I could quit with that, but I won't.

There is so much more fun to be had here.

Knox's father was a rich merchant from Haddington, Scotland.

His mother was a Sinclair.

Are these Knoxes in the peerage?

Of course. See John Knox, b. 1505, who married Margaret Stewart in 1564.

She was the daughter of Lord Stewart of Ochiltree and Agnes Cuninghame of the Earls of Glencairn.

Her grandmother was a Hamilton of the Earls of Arran.

Her great-grandmother was a aLi Drummond and her 2g-grandmother was Lindsay, of the Earls of Crawford.

This also links us to the Murrays.

So, we are right at the top of the Scottish peerage.

Despite marrying a Stewart, this John Knox is scrubbed, with no parents listed.

I think we know why.

They don't want to link him to our John Knox, b. 1514.

But curiously, it does say,

So, wait, this IS our John Knox.

Our John Knox married Margaret Stewart.

So why don't the dates match?

Wikipedia tells us 1514, thepeerage tells us circa 1505.

If we click on Margaret Knox at Wiki, we find she has her own page, where we find her brother was the Earl of Arran.

So, John Knox's brother-in-law was the Earl of Arran [1581]!

They admit that the marriage caused consternation to Mary, Queen of Scots, since the couple had married without Royal consent.

What?

That means Margaret was of the Royal family.

Those outside the Royal family do not need Royal consent to marry.

So, they are admitting John Knox married into the Scottish Royal family.

And since Knox was obviously Jewish, the Royal family must have been, too.

See When Scotland was Jewish, by Jewish authors, where it is admitted.

They don't admit these people in the 16th century were still mostly Jewish/Phoenician, but they admit it for earlier centuries.

If we check Geni, we find Knox's mother is scrubbed.

They really don't want you to follow Knox's maternal lines, do they?

Wiki told us she was a Sinclair, but died early, to get our eyes off her.

So, she probably didn't die early.

Geni also scrubs the father.

He is given no parents.

Not much of a genealogy for one of the most famous Scots of all time.

Guess who the page manager is?

That's right, Erica the Disconnectrix Howton, famous disinformer and hider of history.

She tells us Knox was an indweller, implying he was poor.

The usual lie.

No other sites have a genealogy for Knox.

After Knox's death, Margaret married Sir Andrew Ker, also a high-ranking noble.

Just eight years earlier Ker had been involved in the conspiracy of nobles led by Lord Ruthven, who killed the Queen's personal secretary Rizzio in her presence.

Ruthven then fled to England and presented himself to Queen Elizabeth.

Rizzio is thought to be the father of James VI, who became James I of England.

Or at least that is the story.

It is highly unlikely he would have been allowed to ascend the throne if the Stuarts really thought he was illegitimate.

Anyway, although Ruthven and all other conspirators allegedly fled, Ker remained in Scotland with no ill effects, indicating the whole thing was another fake.

Darnley probably just sent Rizzio back to Italy with a one-way ticket.

Knox was ordained a Catholic priest in 1536 by the Bishop of Dunblane.

So Dunblane has been involved in major hoaxes for centuries.

The Dunblane Massacre – Library of Rickandria

Strange that they don't know where Knox studied, saying it may have been either St. Andrews or Glasgow.

If they don't know where he studied, how do they know he graduated?

We have no real evidence he was a priest, either, since he didn't join a parish.

Rather, he taught the children of nobles, including a Douglas of Longniddry and a Cockburn of Ormiston.

You don't need to be a priest to do that.

Knox did not record when or how he was converted to the Protestant faith, [10] but perhaps the key formative infuences on Knox were Patrick Hamilton and George Wishart.

Perhaps?

Knox wrote a lot, but I guess we are supposed to believe he forgot to mention this most important thing.

So, we click on Patrick Hamilton.

Guess what, he was a close cousin.

Hamilton's grandfather was Alexander Stewart, Duke of Albany. . . who was the son of King James II of Scotland.

They also don't know where this Patrick Hamilton went to school, so he probably didn't.

We are told he was appointed Abbot of Fearn Abbey in 1517.

If we check his birth date, 1504, that means he was 12 or 13.

Really?

He allegedly got his Master of Arts from the University of Paris when he was 15.

At age 16 he went to Leuven to meet Erasmus.

At age 18 he returned to Scotland to join the faculty at the University of St. Andrews.

Early in 1527 the attention of James Beaton, Archbishop of St Andrews, was directed to the heretical preaching of the young priest, whereupon he ordered that Hamilton should be formally tried.

What is the problem there?

Hamilton had been appointed abbot at age 12, so there is no way he was a priest.

Nothing in his bio indicates how he became a priest.

So, this all looks like a hoax.

Hamilton fled the country, going to Germany.

A few months later he returned, living in the open, and suffered no inconvenience from arrest warrants.

David Beaton, the Abbot of Arbroath, avoiding open violence through fear of Hamilton's high connections, invited him to a conference at St Andrews. [5]

The reformer, predicting that he was going to

by his death, [2] accepted the invitation, and for nearly a month was allowed to preach and dispute. [2]

So, Hamilton predicted his death.

Figures.

And, although there was an outstanding arrest warrant for heresy, this Abbot of Arbroath invited the heretic Hamilton to preach?

And was Abbot David Beaton of St. Andrews related to Archbishop James Beaton of St. Andrews?

Of course.

They were uncle and nephew.

So, uncle had no problem with his nephew inviting this heretic to preach, who he had condemned months earlier?

As it turns out, he did have a problem, since “at length” [1528], Hamilton was seized, quickly convicted, and burned at the stake on the same day, “to prevent rescue”.

And they expect us to believe this?

They burned the 24-year-old grandson of the Duke of Albany?

Patrick's sister Katherine continued the hoaxing six years later, when she was allegedly exiled to Berwick-upon-Tweed for being a heretic.

That's kind of like Philippe Petain's exile to the resort town of Ile de Yeu.

Five years earlier one of her trials made it to King James V, who dismissed it with a laugh.

No wonder, since she was a cousin.

I guess they wanted to milk it for a few more years.

So already, you see how this is going to go.

These events were all another stage play, but this time with the royals themselves being the actors.

What about George was a Wishart, Knox's other influence?

The Wisharts are also nobles.

George's mother Learmonth, and they were even higher ranking.

The Wisharts later became Baronets and married the Barclays of Barclays Bank.

At the time of our play, they were marrying the Douglases, Earls of Angus, which also linked them immediately to the Grahams and Forbes.

and Campbells.

George's uncle is listed in the peerage as Sir James Learmonth, 1st of Balcomie, but his mother is scrubbed completely.

Learmonth's son married a Balfour, and her mother was a Bruce, daughter of a Stewart of Rosyth.

So, Wishart was another agent of the Stewarts.

There is no evidence he was a priest or other cleric, and yet we are told he preached to the people of Ayrshire “with much acceptance”. 

At age 24 he was allegedly investigated for heresy by the Bishop of Brechin.

He fled to England where Thomas Cromwell charged him for the same thing.

Under examination by the always lovable Thomas Cranmer, he recanted some charges and was set free.

A couple of years later he was at Corpus Christi College, Oxford, where he taught.

Because, you know, they do no background checks.

Oxford just lets in anyone.

The next year, at age 29, he was chosen to be part of the Scottish embassy to London to arrange the marriage of Mary, Queen of Scots, to Edward VI.

They hired only heretics for that, I guess.

Wishart was also involved with David Beaton, who had [1539] taken over for his uncle as Cardinal of St. Andrews.

Wishart was part of the plot to murder Beaton in 1544, and that supposedly occurred in 1546. 

They admit that what we know of the next section of Wishart's life comes from Knox, so we know it is worthless.

Despite not being a priest or cleric of any kind, Wishart began preaching all over the country, denouncing the Papacy as well as local churches.

In 1546 he was seized by Cardinal Beaton and ordered by the King's privy council to Edinburgh Castle.

He was allegedly hanged and burned on March 1.

Almost three months later Beaton was allegedly assassinated.

But I am showing you none of this happened.

Wishart, like Hamilton, was an agent of the nobility, and his death was faked to sow dissension. 

And here is where it goes from weird to super-weird.

We have seen that Knox's brother-in-law was the Earl of Arran.

But that is a problem because he was a Stewart.

The Earls of Arran were not Stewarts, they were Hamiltons.

The 2nd Earl of Arran was also the Duke of Chatellerault, and regent for Mary, Queen of Scots. 

He was the great-grandson of King James II of Scotland, and as such was heir presumptive in 1542.

Curiously, Cardinal Beaton had also lobbied to be regent for Mary, and his claim was based on a will James V allegedly left.

One of those witnessing this will was James Learmonth, Master Household.

Remember, this Learmonth was a close relative of Wishart.

The clerk who wrote the will was a Balfour, but he was not a legal notary.

Beaton was therefore imprisoned for forgery in 1543, and the Pope interceded.

So, as you see, it was not the heretic Protestants that wanted Beaton dead or banished, it was the regent himself, and the Hamiltons.

it appeared to be an attack on Protestant heretics, but it was really an attack on the Catholic Cardinal, who had dared to claim the regency.

This means the will was probably genuine.

But back to the Arrans.

This 2nd Earl of Arran had a son who became the 3rd Earl of Arran, so where do we fit in this Stewart, 1st and last Earl of Arran?

James Hamilton became the 3rd Earl upon the death of his father in 1575, so why would anyone create another Scottish Earl of Arran in 1581?

The answer?

The King took the title from the Hamiltons in 1581 and gave it to this Stewart.

But the Hamiltons got the Earldom back in 1585.

Knox's brother-in-law James Stewart married his own cousin Elizabeth Stewart, daughter of the Earl of Atholl, at that time.

James Stewart claimed to be first in line to the throne, since James Hamilton was now said to be mentally ill.

[But remember, both Earls of Arran, James Hamilton and James Stewart, were closely related by marriage to Knox.]

Another cousin, Esme Stewart, Duke of Lennox, was, with Stewart, head of government in the 1580s, with James being Lord Chancellor and Esme being the King's best friend (and possibly lover).

So, just in case you missed that, Knox's brother-in-law was Lord Chancellor.

In 1584, James Stewart became governor of Edinburgh Castle and lieutenant-general of the Royal Army.

In this capacity he moved against Presbyterians, which is curious seeing that his brother-in-law had been their leader.

In 1585 he lost power in mysterious circumstances, allegedly due to the murder of the English Earl of Bedford.

He was supposedly banished in disgrace, but never left the country, simply retiring to his castle.

In fact, it is known he continued to work for the King in secret.

He was allegedly murdered by a Douglas in 1595, but we may assume this was yet another fake.

This Douglas was never inconvenienced for this murder, despite the fact that James was—as you will remember—first in line to the throne beyond the King's immediate family.

OK, so let's take all the information back to Knox.

Back when Wishart was arrested, we are told, Knox had avoided being arrested by Lord Bothwell through Wishart's advice to return to tutoring.

What?

I didn't realize tutoring was a valid defense for heresy.

While Knox remained a fugitive, Beaton was murdered on 29 May 1546, within his residence, the Castle of St Andrews, by a gang of five persons in revenge for Wishart's execution.

The assassins seized the castle and eventually their families and friends took refuge with them, about a hundred and fifty men in all.

Among their friends was Henry Balnaves, a former secretary of state in the government, who negotiated with England for the financial support of the rebels. [19]

Douglas and Cockburn suggested to Knox to take their sons to the relative safety of the castle to continue their instruction in reformed doctrine, and Knox arrived at the castle on 10 April 1547.[20]

Can you tell me what part of that starts making sense?

Douglas and Cockburn took their children to hole up with murderers and conspirators in a castle?

And they decide to hole up in the residence of the man they just murdered?

And why would England support these heretics and murderers, exactly?

Although Knox was now holed up with the murderers of the Cardinal, he was proposed to the local parish as pastor, who immediately elected him.

Yes, that makes sense, because parishes always love guys who murder their Cardinal.

As if this story weren't silly enough, they now bring in the French army.

I guess the Scottish army wasn't capable of dealing with a few preachers holed up in a castle, so Mary of Guise called in Henry II of France to intervene.

The French Navy attacked the Castle of St. Andrews, and took everyone prisoner, including Knox.

We are told Knox and other nobles were forced to row in the French ships.

Yeah, right. I'm sure that happened.

Just when you think the story can't get any stupider, it does.

They sailed to France and navigated up the Seine to Rouen.

The nobles, some of whom would have an impact later in Knox's life such as William Kirkcaldy and Henry Balnaves, were sent to various castle-prisons in France. [26]

Knox and the other galley slaves continued to Nantes and stayed on the Loire throughout the winter.

They were threatened with torture if they did not give proper signs of reverence when mass was performed on the ship.

Knox recounted an incident in which one Scot—possibly himself, as he tended to narrate personal anecdotes in the third person—was required to show devotion to a picture of the Virgin Mary.

The prisoner was told to give it a kiss of veneration.

He refused and when the picture was pushed up to his face, the prisoner seized the picture and threw it into the sea, saying,

After that, according to Knox, the Scottish prisoners were no longer forced to perform such devotions. [28]

Hmmm.

OK.

So, back then the Seine flowed into the Loire, I guess.

And we are supposed to believe they rowed around in circles in the river all winter just for sport, so their slavedrivers could threaten them with torture if they didn't show devotion to the Virgin Mary.

But instead of torturing Knox for throwing the picture into the sea, the hearts of his mean old slavedrivers suddenly grew three sizes, and they decided instead to reward him for it.

So touching and believable.

Nineteen months later Knox was released, but no one knows why.

I guess there was a casting call somewhere.

Within two months Knox was licensed to work in the Church of England, and he was sent to Berwick-upon-Tweed.

That's convenient, right, since that is where his cousin Katherine Hamilton had been fake-exiled a few years earlier.

Knox immediately began pushing Luther and Calvin, but no one noticed.

No one dreamed this famous ex-con would continue his heresy.

At this point Knox married his first wife, also of the peerage.

She was Margery Bowes.

Yes, as in Bowes-Lyon, the name of the current Queen of England's mother.

Margery and her father have been scrubbed from thepeerage.com, but her nearest relatives from Durham are still there, including Sir George Bowes.

and Balls, which links us to George Washington.

Who WAS George Washington? – Library of Rickandria

The Bowes were the heads of the Worshipful Company of Turners.

One of them later became Lord Chancellor in 1757-67.

and Greys.

That fits in here, since there are Greys and Nevilles in our current story.

Only a year after coming to England, Knox was appointed preacher of St. Nicholas Church in Newcastle-upon-Tyne.

We aren't told who appointed him, but it was probably the Duke of Northumberland who ran that area.

This again proves Knox was an agent, since only agents get promoted so fast.

And in the next sentence, my guess is confirmed, since we find John Dudley, Duke of Northumberland, just happened to take over the regency that year from the Duke of Somerset. 

What an astonishing coincidence!

Although we are told Knox condemned Dudley, for some reason

and

Yeah, I bet he did.

Agents who stir up trouble are always useful for kings and regents.

But when Mary Tudor came to the throne of England in 1553, she restored Catholicism, and all the scheming was for naught for a while.

Knox fled to Geneva, to rub on John Calvin.

There, Knox began attacking both the Queen and the Emperor, Charles V.

Seeing that he was calling Charles another Nero, you would of course expect Knox to go to Frankfurt, and take up a position there.

The Holy Roman Emperor was crowned in Frankfurt, so that makes perfect sense.

But seriously, if we are supposed to believe Knox is so brave he will go into the Emperor's home court and thumb his nose at him, why not do that in England with the Queen?

Why so cowardly in London but so brave in Frankfurt?

Does anyone ever ask questions like that?

Apparently not.

It doesn't really matter, because as soon as the authorities asked him to leave, he did.

He didn't last a year.

Which means he was probably never there to start with.

He then skulked back to Scotland.

Very soon, the bishops of Scotland asked him to appear in Edinburgh for a trial, but we are supposed to believe the trial was called off due to Knox being accompanied by “influential persons”. 

These persons are not named, but they must mean his cousins. 

Knox then wrote to Queen Mary and asked her to overthrow the church hierarchy. 

We are told she took it as a joke and ignored it. 

OK.

For some reason not given, he returned to Geneva.

You might now ask yourself why Calvin and Knox and others holed up in Geneva, rather than anywhere else.

Why was Geneva so tolerant?

an international banking center crawling with Phoenician Navy.

Where did ALL the Phoenicians Go? – Library of Rickandria

These people weren't tolerant, just the reverse.

They couldn't tolerate anyone not bowing down before their financial hegemony.

Least of all could they tolerate the Catholic Church, which still sometimes mentioned that horrible word “usury”.

The main thing they had against Christ all along was that story about turning over the money changers' tables.

The Truth About “Jesus Christ” – Library of Rickandria

Wherever that story came from, you can be sure it wasn't the Phoenician Navy.

Although I have shown many Popes were Jewish, you can be sure those Popes were instructed as job one to de-emphasize any rules against usury or other banking.

So anyway, Knox was hanging out with his banker friends in Geneva, pretending to be a reforming Protestant, when what he really was is an agent of the Stuarts and Hamiltons back in Scotland.

You will say he was preaching against Mary Guise and Mary, Queen of Scots, who were Stuarts, but Knox wasn't (mainly) hired to attack them.

He was hired to attack their Catholicism and some of their bloodlines.

Thrones infiltrated – Library of Rickandria

The Stuarts, like Henry VIII, needed to move against Catholicism, and to do that they had to first move their own family, you see.

But like the Hapsburgs, the Stuarts were split by various warring bloodlines, some of those lines being Catholic.

In defending Catholicism they were defending those bloodlines, you see.

So, it took a while to move the family away from the old religion.

It could only be done through marriages.

In fact, this is (one reason) why Knox and others targeted women.

Knox's most famous pamphlet was "The first blast of the trumpet against the monstruous regiment of women".

The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstruous Regiment of Women - Wikipedia

The women rulers that Knox had in mind were Queen Mary I of England and Mary of Guise, the Dowager Queen of Scotland and regent on behalf of her daughter, Mary, Queen of Scots.

This biblical position was not unusual in Knox's day; however, even he was aware that the pamphlet was dangerously seditious [59]. . .

In England, the pamphlet was officially condemned by royal proclamation.

The impact of the document was complicated later that year, when Elizabeth Tudor became Queen of England.

Although Knox had not targeted Elizabeth, he had deeply offended her, and she never forgave him.

That's why we seem to have Stuarts attacking Stuarts in these years, with many fake stories made up to cover it.

The venaler (banking) Stuarts had to move the less venal in the required direction, and that meant moving against Rome in all ways.

Rome not only had those awful rules against usury, perhaps even more importantly it had unfathomable wealth stored up across all the countries of Europe, ripe for the pillaging.

It would take the bankers many centuries to pillage it all, and though we saw they cleaned out most of France in the fake French Revolution, they still weren't finished.

The French Revolution – Library of Rickandria

They are never finished, since they will see any form of new wealth as rightfully theirs.

They have continued to drink straight from all treasuries up to the present time.

In 1559 Knox returned to Scotland, which as usual makes no sense given the story we are told.

Elizabeth, a Protestant, was now on the throne of England, but we are told she wouldn't allow him in.

So, Knox went to Scotland, where a Catholic was still on the throne.

The Queen Regent immediately summoned Knox to Stirling Castle, but he went to Perth instead.

When the Queen Regent moved against Perth, Knox holed up in St. Andrews Castle again.

Using Knox as a casus belli, the bankers and their allies raised an army against the two Marys.

The leaders were Lord Argyll and Lord Moray, that is Archibald Campbell, Earl of Argyll, and James Stewart, 1st Earl of Moray.

Stewart was the bastard of James V and had been regent for his nephew James VI.

So, you can see that this actually had nothing to do with Knox.

It was a coup of one branch of the Stewarts against another.

You may be interested to know that William Maitland, the Queen's secretary, defected to the Protestant side.

That should remind you of the actor Jimmy Stewart, whose real name was James Maitland Stewart.

The French were called in for the Catholic side, but the Protestants called in England, and Mary Guise fell.

Another thing you need to know, in trying to understand what was going on, is that this wasn't just Stuarts versus Stuarts.

Not all these Stuarts were equal in blood.

What not a lot of people know is that the Stuarts were being infiltrated sort of simultaneously both by the Bourbons and by the “Tudors”.

One reason Mary, Queen of Scots, was targeted is that she was a Bourbon through her mother Mary Guise.

They want you concentrating on the name Guise, but it was the name Bourbon that was the problem.

Her mother was a Bourbon, and two great-grandmothers were Bourbons, including Charlotte of Bourbon, d. 1422, who was Queen of Armenia and Jerusalem through her marriage to King Janus of Cyprus.

He is in the direct line of Maria Comnena, earlier Queen of Jerusalem in 1167-74.

She was the wife of Amalric I and the great-granddaughter of John II Komnenos, Emperor of Byzantium.

They circle back and become Counts of Savoy in the 900s.

So, a very prominent line of the Phoenician Navy, going way back.

Mary of Guise was a Bourbon in several lines, since another great-grandmother was Catherine of Bourbon.

Through the Lorraines she was also a Habsburg.

The “Tudors” didn't like that.

Worst of all, Mary Stuart had married the son of Henry II of France, which brought not only the Valois into the immediate bloodlines, but also the Medicis.

Remember, Catherine de' Medicis was the mother-in-law of Mary Stuart.

So that had to be stopped in its tracks.

All the religious wars were just cover for that.

The Tudors, as we know, won this battle for infiltration of the Stuart lines.

Mary Stuart's husband Darnley was a Tudor on his Douglas side, his grandmother being Margaret Tudor, so replacing Mary with her son James VI was important to the Tudors.

Mary was a Tudor through the same grandmother but replacing her with her son James immediately doubled the Tudor blood, while trebly diminishing the Bourbon/Valois/Medici blood that would have come from any French son of hers.

Actually, the Tudor kings were also Komnenos in two lines, going back to Isaac II Angelos, Emperor of Byzantium.

Take the line through Blanche of Artois and follow the women, and also the line through John of Gaunt.

The Tudors are also Carolingians in four lines through Alice of Normandy and the Counts of Anjou.

They are also Capetians in two lines and Ruriks.

In another four lines they come from Rollo of Normandy, linking them to William the Conqueror.

So, it wasn't French lines that were a problem.

It was a matter of which French lines.

Rollo took the lines through France back to the Vikings, while other French lines—including the Bourbons—came from Southern Europe, especially Spain.

In many ways this was Southern Phoenicians versus Northern.

But the most interesting invasion of these bloodlines came more recently, and we have to look again at the arrival of Henry VII, said to be the son of Edmund Tudor and Margaret Beaufort.

In a previous paper, I showed you why I think Edmund Tudor is a ghost.

Henry VII: Another Jewish Invasion of England – Library of Rickandria

He never existed.

The real father of Henry VII was Thomas Stanley, 1st Earl of Derby and King of Mann.

Proof coming up.

They tell us Margaret married Edmund Tudor at age 12 and was widowed by age 13, already pregnant with Henry.

But that is physically nearly impossible, since 12-year-old girls weren't fertile at that age in those centuries.

Even now the age of menarche in the UK is 13.

In 1900 it was 14.

In 1455 the age of menarche was 16.

So, the odds Margaret got pregnant at age 12 is very low.

The other problem is that Henry was supposedly conceived in April 1456.

Edmund had allegedly been sent to Wales by the King as part of the war against Gruffudd. 

Edmund did not take Margaret with him, since he was fighting all that spring, and she was just a child herself.

Another problem is that Edmund had allegedly been the ward of Margaret since she was nine. 

So, she would have been more like a daughter.

Despite being nine, she had previously been married to the Duke of Suffolk's son John.

But that marriage was almost immediately annulled.

Although Edmund was the son of a servant, they admit his marriage to Margaret would put him direct line to the throne.

What they don't tell us is why this son of a servant would be allowed to marry Margaret, instead of any of the hundred higher ranking nobles in the country.

Margaret allegedly remarried at age 14, to Lord Stafford, Duke of Buckingham.

But Buckingham was 55 at that time and had never had a previous wife or lover.

So, you get the picture.

There is no evidence he ever had relations with Margaret, one, since she was still under the age of menarche, and two because she never again got pregnant.

Finally, at age 28 Margaret married Stanley.

You will say Henry was 15 by then, so my theory isn't adding up.

But since Stafford was just a beard, Stanley could have been sleeping with Margaret any time before that.

Say Stanley impregnated Margaret as soon as he could, at age 15-16.

That would mean they only had to slur the age of Henry by two years, making him 14 instead of 16 in 1472.

Would anyone know the difference?

Would you?

No.

Henry has no bio up to 1483, when he would have been 27 by old reckoning and 25 by my reckoning.

But just notice how many mysteries this solves.

One, it explains why Stanley put the crown on Henry's head after the battle of Bosworth Field.

He was crowning his own son.

It explains why these Stanleys, despite being kingmakers, never cared to be elevated above Earl. 

They never became Dukes, which always seemed strange to me.

I have commented on it before.

Well, why become Duke when you are already secretly King?

That is Edward V and the Duke of York, sons of Edward the IV.

We are told Richard III ordered their imprisonment, but it is admitted that their actual guard in the Tower was. . . . Stanley.

As their gaoler, he was responsible for whatever happened to them.

I have told you it is unlikely he killed them.

Far easier and less risky to fake their deaths, sending them to France and refusing them re-entry.

If they somehow got back in, he could just say they were imposters.

It has been done hundreds of times.

Another clue is the Wikipedia page for Royal Arms of England.

Coat of arms of England - Wikipedia

Scan down the page and notice what is missing.

Nothing for the Tudors.

Did the Tudors not have Royal Arms?

Of course they did, though they hide it on purpose.

That is the arms of Henry VII.

He added the belt as well as the dragon and dog.

The coat of arms of the Plantagenets has been captured, hasn't it, tied up and surrounded now by a belt and guarded by two animals.

The words say

Or

However, they admit it is used ironically to insinuate the presence of a hidden agenda.

The same words still appear on the Order of the Garter, on the same belt.

The Arms of the Garter also have the words Dieu et Mon Droit, meaning

Well, if God is to your right, then you are to the left hand of God, explaining the red left hand of the Baronetcys as well as the sinister path.

Well, what do you know!

So, Stanley, King of Mann, was telling us he had captured the throne of England.

And no one has figured this out?

They also pretend not to know what the three legs spinning are on the Coat of Arms for the Isle of Mann, but that is the triskeles, found on old Greek coins and the shield of Achilles.

Hermes-Thoth in Phoenicia | Coin Talk

The sandals are winged, so it may have something to do with Hermes.

But the big clue is that the triskeles was used by Syracuse.

Syracuse was linked to the Mycenaeans, which links us to the. . . Phoenicians.

I see this as Stanley admitting he was a Phoenician.

That confirms my Hermes guess, since the Phoenicians called Hermes, Thoth.

He was later incarnated as Hermes Trismegistus, or Hermes the Thrice Great.

Which is why we see the three legs and the triskeles.

This Hermes Trismegistus helped the Phoenician god El overthrow Uranus.

So, Stanley is invoking Hermes Trismegistus to help him overthrow Uranus (Richard III and the Plantagenets), you see.

But let's return to John Knox.

His story is actually so stupid I got bored with it.

I can't believe anyone ever took it seriously.

Mary of Guise allegedly died in Edinburgh Castle in 1560, though she was only 45.

Most assume she was murdered, but I assume she was spanked and banished to France.

On August 1, aces and eights, Chai, Scottish Parliament met, and the very first thing they did, even before talking about Mary, is abolish the jurisdiction of the Pope and forbid Mass in Scotland.

Tell me that doesn't sound like a Jewish thing to do.

If you don't believe me, the second thing they did is seize all Catholic property in Scotland, supposedly to pay for setting up the new kirks.

Tell me that wasn't one of the prime directives all along.

Next, we have a lot of manufactured conversations between Knox and the Queen, who for some reason found this an auspicious time to return to Scotland from her relatives in Paris.

Given the fall of her mother, and her claim on the English throne inhabited by Elizabeth, she was doubly doomed, and you would think they would end her story then, but they spun it out for another six years.

They hardly mention Knox on her page, which is informative.

He only appears once briefly in her history.

But let's back up a couple of years.

Mary had married Francis and become Queen of France as well as Scotland in 1559, making her very dangerous to England and especially the Tudors/Stanleys.

We are told Two of the Queen's uncles, the Duke of Guise and the Cardinal of Lorraine, were now dominant in French politics,[50] enjoying an ascendancy called by some historians la tyrannie Guisienne. [51]

That is usual misdirection, since the Guises weren't running France, the Medicis were.

Catherine de' Medicis didn't die until 1589.

Anyway, Francis II died in 1560, and I think it is possible the Medicis themselves poisoned him to prevent a war with England.

What they had thought was possible 20 years earlier didn't seem possible at that time, so they preferred to turn down the heat.

The only way to do that was to get rid of Mary, and the only way to do that was to poison him, her, or both.

Since he was such a pathetic wretch and she such an Amazon, it may have been easier to get rid of him.

His brothers were hardly any better as men, but at least they didn't embroil France in all of Scotland's politics.

The Medicis could probably see that after 1560 Scotland was lost, so it was best to pull the plug there for the time and plot in other directions.

See the religious wars started by Catherine in 1562. . . which also weren't religious.

Modern historian Jenny Wormald found this remarkable and suggested that Mary's failure to appoint a council sympathetic to Catholic and French interests was an indication of her focus on the English throne, over the internal problems of Scotland.

No, Mary didn't bother doing that because she knew the French had abandoned her.

There were no French interests in Scotland after the death of Francis.

Mary correctly supposed she was on her own and was attempting to build local alliances.

Which is an indication of how smart she was.

She had to be smart to survive the Medicis and had to be even smarter to survive the Stanleys for six years as Queen.

You also have to remember that she had a lot of local support in Scotland, outside the noble ranks, since those on the ground weren't happy to have this Protestantism forced on them.

The masses had been Catholic for a long time and didn't appreciate the Stuarts flipping on them like this.

As in France two centuries later, the masses weren't benefitting from the seizure of Catholic property.

There was no trickle down.

Just the reverse.

The masses suffered the loss of Church decorations and other Church expenditures.

Many nobles also suffered this loss, since Catholic wealth was partly in their hands.

They had just been robbed in this fake “Reformation”. 

she continued to press her case as heir presumptive to the English throne.

She should have recognized that without French help, that was never going to happen.

had united could that have happened, and the Stanleys were never going to allow it to happen—since it would have meant they would be thrown out.

There was some chance of it happening back in the 1400s, but it would have meant an alliance between the Northern and Southern arms of the Phoenician Navy.

Stanley didn't want any such alliance, because it would have meant power sharing with the Bourbons and many other southern lines, including the Medicis.

Well, she actually made a lot of other mistakes, her choice of men being the greatest after her claim to the English throne.

and straight, he turned out to be foolish and ambitious, not taking no for answer when he demanded the Crown Matrimonial.

That was his doom.

Mary then moved on to Bothwell, an even worse choice.

We see now why Elizabeth pretended to be a virgin.

public support.

He was considered to be the murderer of Darnley and had divorced his previous wife just twelve days before marrying Mary. 

So, the Scots then saw Mary as just another whore.

Just two months later she was forced to abdicate in favor of her son James.

Once Mary was defeated and fled to England, she was finished.

The rest of the history hardly bears repeating.

As I showed above, the Stanleys had every reason to be happy she had been replaced by her son, since they had caused it, as far as it was in their power.

They had no reason to re-install her.

After many years of fooling around, she was arrested in 1586, on what day?

August 11, aces and eights, Chai.

Walsingham planted letters showing Mary was plotting against Elizabeth.

the Earls of Shrewsbury and Kent.

Meaning, it was faked.

Shrewsbury was Sir George Talbot, married to a Manners and a Hardwicke.

Through both ladies he was linked to the Stanleys.

He was also related to the Stanleys through his mother, who was a Hastings and a Neville.

Kent was Henry Grey, also related to the Stanleys through many lines, mainly the Percys and Nevilles.

Shrewsbury and Kent were also close cousins, via the Percys and Spencers.

We are told Mary smiled at the execution, more indication it was fake.

There are various conflicting reports of the execution, and faked drawings with many more people shown to be in attendance than were.

Elizabeth claimed the execution happened without her authority.

Mary was alleged buried in Peterborough, England, in a Protestant service, which of course makes no sense.

Her body was allegedly exhumed and reburied by her son King James I in 1612 in Westminster
Abbey across from Elizabeth, so that is when she really died.

Why else would her son wait 25 years to put her in a sensible place?

Her body should of course have been sent to Scotland in 1587.

Or, if England had decided to capture the corpse for some reason, her son should have been able to recapture it when he became King of England in 1603.

In no rational story would she have remained in Peterborough for 25 years.

She would have been 69 in 1612.

So, where was she for 25 years?

France, of course.

She had been brought up there and spoke the language fluently.

I retold the story of Mary here for a reason.

You can see John Knox is no necessary part of it, which is why he appears only once in passing on her Wiki page.

And yet on his own page we get many meetings of him with Mary, saying ridiculous things to her and acting like a peacock.

We are supposed to believe he was major cause of her fall and of the Protestant reformation in Scotland, when he was nothing but a minor agent of the Stanleys.

As such a person, his entire life was faked, and most of it only happened on paper.

We can be sure his fake “magnum opus”, History of the Reformation of Scotland, was written by some committee of spooks in London, or possibly Anglesey.

He supposedly started writing it in 1559, but as you will remember, he was allegedly very busy that year, preaching at St. Giles, writing letters, and traveling all over the place.

That was the year Mary of Guise was deposed, remember?

But it hardly matters, since the 5-volume book is the biggest pile of pulp ever published.

They admit he didn't write the 5th book but might as well admit it of all of them.

If the books were important at all, then why weren't they published until 1644, 78 years after they were completed?

English Intelligence had 78 years to fake these things.

But it is even worse than that, because the Scots cared so little for Knox, they soon allowed his grave to be plowed under.

He was supposedly buried at St. Giles Cathedral, but by 1633 his grave was lost.

On his page we are told it was due to the churchyard's destruction in that year, but on the page for St. Giles, nothing is mentioned as happening in that year, other than the visit of Charles I. 

Since Knox is supposed to be the most famous preacher ever at St. Giles, it is hard to understand how his grave was lost.

The paltry sum of money Knox bequeathed to his family, which would have left them in dire poverty, showed that he had not profted from his work in the Kirk.

The regent, Lord Morton, asked the General Assembly to continue paying his stipend to his widow for one year after his death, and the regent ensured that Knox's dependents were decently supported. [91]

What?

Do they think we are stupid?

We were just told three sentences earlier that his “young wife” was with him on his last day, helping him read Paul's First Letter to the Corinthians.

I remind you that young wife Margaret was a Stewart and a Hamilton of the Royal Family, so her family was one of the richest in Scotland.

Her nephew was the Baron Andrew Stewart, Gentleman of the Bedchamber to James I of England, and General of Edinburgh Castle.

His wife was a Kennedy of Blairquhan Castle.

He owned large estates in Galloway and Strathclyde.

Amusingly, on his Wikipedia page we are told that in 1608 he was ordered by the King to the Western Isles, taking with him his uncle John Knox.

But Knox supposedly died 36 years earlier, at age 58.

He would have been 94 in 1608.

Also remember that Margaret soon remarried to another rich noble, Sir Andrew Ker, so there was never any doubt of her children being fed.

And do you really think a widow in “dire poverty”, on stipend from the General Assembly, would be able to arrange a marriage with a rich noble?

So, that's another one down.

Just so you know, what I have learned about Calvin and Knox in the past couple of weeks confirms my suspicions about Luther.

Several years ago, I pointed out that Luther had been accused over the centuries of being Jewish, and therefore a front for the bankers in Germany and Switzerland.

His mother was a Lindemann, which is a Jewish name.

So, his attacks on Rome didn't arise from doctrine, or at least not from any doctrine beyond banning of usury.

For a funny clue in the same direction, I send you to this Monty Python video called “The Adventures of Martin Luther”.

Before watching it, remember that the Monty Python guys are all upper-class Brits with peerage connections.

One of them was named Graham Chapman, remember.

His mother is a Towers, and they have been marrying into the top of the Scottish peerage since the 1300s, related to the Douglases and Lindsays.

He was born 1/8.

John Cleese is really John Cheese.

Terry Jones, who appears as Luther, is really Terence Graham Parry Jones.

He is listed in the peerage, though his mother is scrubbed.

We may assume he is related to the Grahams and Parrys of the peerage, meaning, he is related to Graham Chapman.

The Parrys were baronets related to the Herberts (Earls of Pembroke) and Fynes-Clintons.

The Grahams are dukes of Montrose.

and Watson.

One of his recent ancestors was Lieutenant General in the Indian Army.

Through the Moretons, Palin is related to the Earls of Ducie, and through them to the Herberts, Earls of Carnarvon.

We know these are the right Moretons, since Palin is a Dutton and so are the Earls of Ducie. 

Through the Lockharts, we may be able to link him to this paper.

The Lockharts were baronets, and they were related to the Wisharts.

See above, where Wishart was one of John Knox's mentors.

So, anyway, in the video, Luther is running from the law in Wittenburg, and he arrives at the house of Mamie Mayer.

That's the first joke, since that is an obviously Jewish name.

Her husband is named Hymie.

They all speak in outrageous New York Jewish accents, including Luther.

Luther wants to look at the cutlery, but he is really there to look at the daughters.