Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
How does Julie Green's accuracy compare over time—are there trends of improvement or decline?
Executive summary
Available reporting shows Julie Green is a public figure who issues frequent prophetic political claims; multiple outlets and commentators document many high-profile predictions that did not come to pass and say her track record includes repeated misses—examples include claims about Prince Charles and Queen Elizabeth, Trump’s restoration and trial outcomes, and other political prophecies [1] [2]. Coverage is fragmented: conservative supportive sites defend her, while mainstream and watchdog outlets document failed predictions and characterize her as sensationalist or a “false prophet” [3] [1] [2].
1. A prolific proclaimer whose claims span politics and royalty
Reporting establishes that Julie Green publicly issues prophetic statements on political figures and events—she has prophesied about U.S. politics (claims about Trump’s political fate and trial) and international royalty (a widely reported claim that Prince Charles would be involved in Queen Elizabeth’s death) [1] [2].
2. Media pattern: repeated high-profile misses documented by critics
Critical outlets and watchdog commentators chronicle a pattern of failed predictions. Rolling Stone summarized her claim that Prince Charles would “have his mother murdered” and framed it as an outlandish, unsubstantiated prophecy; other commentaries list prophecies—about Trump’s return to the presidency and trial victories—that did not materialize, noting these as evidence of a poor track record [1] [2].
3. Supportive voices and communities see her differently
Some religious and sympathetic platforms defend Green or treat her work as part of a prophetic tradition; MarketFaith’s discussion reflects debate within faith communities about whether such prophecies are genuine or misleading, and some supporters urge prayer and further discernment rather than outright rejection [3]. Online forums and niche communities also promote her, sometimes cataloguing prophecies as “proven” in their view [4].
4. Audience reach amplifies impact despite contested accuracy
Sources note that Green maintains a substantial online audience—her videos get large view counts on platforms like Rumble—so even if many of her public predictions fail, they still influence a sizable audience and political circles where she has ties [2] [1].
5. Interpretations differ: prophecy as political signaling vs. factual forecasting
Commentators such as Diana Butler Bass argue that prophetic claims by figures like Green function less as empirically testable forecasts and more as political and emotional signaling to a constituency frustrated with existing institutions; this framing helps explain why failed predictions may not diminish her influence among followers [5].
6. Evidence for a measurable trend (improvement or decline) is sparse in reporting
The available sources document multiple failed high-profile prophecies across several years and note ongoing activity, but none provide a systematic, time-series analysis of hits vs. misses that would show quantified improvement or decline over time (not found in current reporting). Journalistic pieces and opinion essays give snapshots and pattern claims but do not produce statistical trend data [1] [2] [5].
7. How different outlets frame “accuracy” and motives
Mainstream and watchdog pieces emphasize factual failures and label Green a “false prophet” or sensationalist [1] [2]. Religious and sympathetic outlets debate prophetic legitimacy, sometimes urging charitable interpretation and prayer rather than outright condemnation [3] [4]. Observers note that Green’s prophetic style—vague, emotional, politically aligned—can insulate her from straightforward falsification and serve organizational or political aims [5] [1].
8. What would be needed to establish a clear trend
To determine an objective trend of improvement or decline, reporters or researchers would need a catalog of Green’s dated predictions, a consistent rubric for what counts as a “hit” versus “miss,” and a time-series analysis showing proportions over time. Available sources do not supply such a dataset or methodology (not found in current reporting).
9. Bottom line for readers evaluating her accuracy
Current reporting documents numerous high-profile failed prophecies and ongoing high visibility [1] [2], while also showing that defenders and some communities treat her prophecies differently [3] [4]. Because there is no comprehensive, quantitative tally in the sources, claims about a clear improvement or decline over time cannot be reliably asserted from these reports alone (not found in current reporting).