ALLEGIANCE

 

JEREMY CORBYN and the 'PRIVY COUNCIL OATH'...

Much furore in the Press and Media and with some 'anti-Corbyn', 'vested interested' Tory politicians accusing JEREMY CORBYN of 'snubbing' the Queen. So, just look at the 'Oath' he would be required to give:

    

"You do swear by Almighty God to be a true and faithful Servant unto The Queen's Majesty as one of Her Majesty's Privy Council. You will not know or understand of any manner of thing to be attempted, done or spoken against Her Majesty's Person, Honour, Crown or Dignity Royal, but you will lett and withstand the same to the uttermost of your power, and either cause it to be revealed to Her Majesty Herself, or to such of Her Privy Council as shall advertise Her Majesty of the same. You will in all things to be moved, treated and debated in Council, faithfully and truly declare your Mind and Opinion, according to your Heart and Conscience; and will keep secret all matters committed and revealed unto you, or that shall be treated of secretly in Council. And if any of the said Treaties or Counsels shall touch any of the Counsellors you will not reveal it unto him but will keep the same until such time as, by the consent of Her Majesty or of the Council, Publication shall be made thereof. You will to your uttermost bear Faith and Allegiance to the Queen's Majesty; and will assist and defend all civil and temporal Jurisdictions, Pre-eminences, and Authorities, granted to Her Majesty and annexed to the Crown by Acts of Parliament, or otherwise, against all Foreign Princes, Persons, Prelates, States, or Potentates. And generally in all things you will do as a faithful and true Servant ought to do to Her Majesty so help you God."

It is my contention that if JEREMY CORBYN was to kneel down and kiss the Queen's hand in swearing this 'Oath of Allegiance', he would be betraying,

1. Everything he is.
2. Everything he stands for.
3. And, everything 251,000 people who voted for him, voted for him to be.

All those 'morons' that 'kiss the Queen's hand' and 'swear this oath' do not have the slightest comprehension as to what 'ALLEGIANCE' actually is.

ALLEGIANCE is a contract between the giver of the 'allegiance' and, the recipient of the 'allegiance' given. Most British 'establishment' today still truly believes in the ridiculous idea that imposed 'allegiance' to the 'Reigning Monarch' is required from all, just because they have been born, to the shores of the country. That, just being born to the shores of 'England', requires that everyone is required to give 'allegiance' to the King or a Queen; without, them, providing anything at all in response. Yet, the "Divine right of Kings" was abolished in this land, when King Charles the first, had his head cut off.

The 'ALLEGIANCE' applicable to every 'Reigning Monarch' that sits upon the 'English' throne, derives from the concept of the, "Original Contract"; an, 'unwritten contract'; but a 'contract' that is fully established and entrenched in 'English Law'. The 'Original Contract' derives from the concept that,

"Allegiance is given to the Liege Lord for the protection of the Liege Lord". The 'Reigning Monarch' is, required by law, to protect the People.

 

In 1688 the CONVENTION (Parliament) removed King James II from the throne for "Breaking the Original Contract betwixt King and People". The CONVENTION declared that he had failed to protect the People and their religion, and, that thereby he had 'abdicated' the throne. The CONVENTION ruled that the throne was 'Vacant'; and, Prince William of Orange became the next King.

 

But, in a 'special debate' that was held in the Painted Chamber of the House of Commons, held between both 'Lords' and 'Commons' to debate the words, "Abdicated" and "The Throne is Vacant";  'The Speaker' of the CONVENTION, HENRY POWLE, said this:

 

"It is from those that are upon the Throne of England (when there are any such) from whom the People of England ought to receive Protection; and to whom, for that Cause, they owe the Allegiance of Subjects; but there being none now from whom they expect Regal Protection, and to whom, for that Cause they owe the Allegiance of Subjects, the Commons conceive, The Throne is Vacant."

 

 

CONCLUSION

QUEEN ELIZABETH THE SECOND has not honoured the 'Original Contract' throughout the entire time that she has occupied the throne. Therefore, by 'precedent of law' she too has 'abdicated' the throne.

This CONVENTION further ruled, 

"The contract is as binding upon the Successor as well as it was on the Deposed,
 if the Successor breaks the contract he too can be Deposed". 

                    

Note: The 'Reigning Monarch' of England is provided with two legal instruments that have been specifically created in order to assist the 'Reigning Monarch' to carry out the duty of honouring the 'Original Contract' and, provide, the protection of the People. They are the 'Royal Assent' and the 'Royal Prerogative'. The 'Royal Assent' provides the Monarch with the right and duty to monitor the laws created by parliament; awarding the 'assent' if they are free of corruption; refusing to grant it if they are not. It is interesting to note that the very last time a 'Reigning Monarch' of England refused to grant the 'Royal Assent', was on the 11th of March 1708, when Queen Anne refused to grant it to the Bill passed by parliament for the establishment of the "Militia in Scotland".

 

Ever since the 11th March 1708 every 'Reigning Monarch' that has sat upon the throne has merely acted like a village sub-postmaster or sub-postmistress, franking and rubber-stamping every 'piece of paper', presented to them by parliament.

 

"The People" thereby being denied all protection of law.

 

Would I give allegiance to the Queen? No, I would not.

Read my book "DEMOCRACY" available here: http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1500465984

Gordon J Sheppard