It's late. Probably a not worth the brain power, but I do feel this past week that things are genuinely building to a boil in a way we haven't seen before. Something is up and the timing with her passing is kind of what drove this line of thinking. Future proves past and all. Really might believe something is coming in the next week or so despite the numbness we've all developed for "two more weeks" type of garbage.
The reason for the killswitch is because even if her children went "dark side", no mother wants to see them undone in her lifetime, but she did feel a duty of some sort to her countrymen. Perhaps she pressured them to turn over a new leaf in vain efforts to save them. Perhaps she sought salvation for herself and the evil she allowed. Who can say. I do recall at least one member sort of giving up "the life" though, but I barely follow any celebrity or royal drama.
I do know that Maxwell's family allegedly had ties to British Intel or something in that vein. Something-something boating "accident" for her father or something, right? Would help explain Epstein/Maxwell going down which is one of the biggest things we've seen. Britain is also one of the first countries to openly resist the EU in such bold fashion as Brexit, but again, the corruption was deep and wide in the government so it's been like pulling teeth. Some of the Russiagate hoax that's been exposed? Tied to British assets. The list kind of goes on.
Dunno, just felt like this should be posted. Don't really expect a lot out of it, but maybe it'll be useful in some way? Thanks for reading. Keep up the good work all!
Creative thinking is a good thing. However, I think you're wrong on this.
It's clear this is a US-led effort, not a British one. Q is laser focused on US politics. Q did all of his confirmations and Q proofs using US gov't officials, not UK ones. If Q were British installing a friendly, patriotic PM would be easier (unrig the elections, control who the party selects as PM) than working through the US two-party system and hijacking the weaker of the two parties. While it's clear the Queen is a player in the game, the references Q makes to the Queen and the British royal family are hostile and imply deep, transgenerational corruption, particularly highlighting Prince Andrew, but implying there's far more to the story. If Q were being led by the Queen, I don't think she'd set herself up as a "bad guy" or let Trump humiliate her in ceremony as was done during the full-honors state visit in 2018. In that instance in particular, the Queen could have quite easily voluntarily changed the legal status of the US corporation. She didn't. Trump had to go there and negotiate it as a hostile takeover.
As for the extent of the royal family's misdeeds, I think a deal was made to keep a lot of it quiet. Trump basically made her an offer she couldn't refuse. I think he laid out everything about the family's crimes and threatened to expose them all, similar to what he did with the Saudis in 2017. Trump would keep quiet and help maintain the royal family's status as a figurehead and patriotic symbol for the UK rather than bringing the whole family down to its knees, in exchange, she handed over full sovereignty, relinquished all claims on the US former colony overt and covert, and promised to clean her house of the pedophiles discreetly. Megan Markle, who was a cabal asset was excised from the family. Harry was stripped of royal duties for not divorcing her. Andrew's out of the line of succession and stripped of titles. These are big punishments in a royal bloodline. Sure, they keep the money, but they're cut off from the power and hereditary titles. Remember when Buckingham Palace was lights out and boarded up windows for several weeks? I suspect more house cleaning, and I think the subtle disrespect at the funeral was another part of the deal, a promise that the next generation would keep the family's nose clean. That's my theory as to how 2018 went down based on everything we saw, and reinforced by all of the subtle disrespectful symbolism involved in the funeral.
I appreciate the creative thinking. Keep it coming, anon. We need more of that, but I think this particular idea is incorrect.
I appreciate the mature, rational critique. You bring up good points to consider with what sparse amount I put up.
On the surface my theory is kinda silly and I'm not really committed to it (as alluded in the post). I think it's more of a "there's smoke there's fire" in a theory-crafting sense. I strongly believe something fishy is up with all this Queen business and I'm not subscribing to the mainstream Q theorists take on it.
That said, in defense of it (and after a good night of sleep), I will flesh out a little bit that may complement what you said.
On the note of espionage and psyops, what is the first thing you do if you're a state actor and see a psyop going on that you hate intensely? Say...Q for example? Obviously, you want to find the source of it. I argue by focusing so much on the United States that's good evidence that Q is NOT primarily US based as it would greatly decrease the efforts needed to find them.
If you were in another country, however, using the US as a proxy would actually be very productive as it holds a lot of sway and still holds onto the image of being "by the people for the people." If you can tame that wild horse, you can get away with a lot. Additionally, you force your hunters to exhaust searching the US to find you. After all, maybe you are that reckless and just say "yeah, I'm clearly in this country despite all common sense that you'll try to hunt me down."
Personally, through my own experience in government, if they want to know what one of their spooks are up to, they'll likely know or know soon enough when the heat comes on. This would've happened years ago, but didn't? Fishy for a prolific cabal to flub such a basic detail (from their perspective). This suggests they couldn't find Q locally.
So I'm convinced Q is not only multi-national, but also NOT based in the US. We can disagree on this point, but two interesting points of consideration are the following:
When you combine the two, I say it's HIGHLY likely that the "main" Q team is affiliated with a nation we share such intel agreements with. People often overlook this because Q is seen as US-centric and the Smith-Mundt act was changed/repealed, but that just means the US is equally a possibility, not the only one.
And who is one of our closest allies for whatever reason? Britain
So it isn't perfect, but some of the dots kind of connect in odd ways I don't see mentioned a lot.