The Coronation Oath of
the ‘Reigning Monarch’ of England.
for the protection of the Liege Lord”
KIng James
the Second was removed from the English throne in 1688 by the CONVENTION
(Parliament) for, "Breaking the original contract betwixt King and
People"; and, the CONVENTION declared, that he had abdicated the
throne and thereby the throne was, Vacant.
In respect to the "Lineal Descent", (all subsequent 'Reigning Monarch's' sitting upon the English throne), the CONVENTION ruled this:
"The Contract is as binding upon the Successor as well as it was on the Deposed, if the Successor broke the original contract, they too can be deposed".
In respect to the "Lineal Descent", (all subsequent 'Reigning Monarch's' sitting upon the English throne), the CONVENTION ruled this:
"The Contract is as binding upon the Successor as well as it was on the Deposed, if the Successor broke the original contract, they too can be deposed".
It is my assertion that ELIZABETH THE SECOND has
broken her Coronation Oath.
ELIZABETH THE SECOND has not
honoured the "Original Contract" throughout her entire reign. I therefore
remind the British People of the promise she made when she swore the Coronation
Oath:
THE OATH
All British Monarch’s, before the Altar of God,
Swear this sacred and solemn Oath,
At their Coronation.
Madam, is your Majesty willing to take the Oath?
And the Queen answering,
Archbishop. Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the
Peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada,
Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Pakistan, and Ceylon, and of
your Possessions and the other Territories to any of them belonging or
pertaining, according to their respective laws and customs?
Queen. I solemnly promise so
to do.
Archbishop. Will you to your power, cause Law and
Justice, in Mercy, to be executed in all your judgements?
Queen. I will.
Archbishop. Will you to the utmost of your power
maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the
utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed
Religion established by Law? Will you maintain and preserve inviolably the
settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and
government thereof, as by law established in England? And will you preserve
unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the Churches there committed to
their charge, all such rights and privileges, as by law do or shall appertain
to them or any of them?
Queen. All this I promise to
do.
Then the Queen arising out of her Chair, supported as before, the Sword
of State being carried before her, shall go to the Altar,, and make her solemn
Oath in the sight of all the people to observe the premisses: laying her right
hand upon the Holy Gospel of the great Bible (which was before carried in the
procession and is now brought from the Altar by the Archbishop, and tendered to
her as she kneels upon the steps), and saying these words,
Queen. The things, which I have here before promised, I
will perform and keep. So help me God.
The Queen having thus taken her Oath shall return again to the
her Chair,
And the Bible shall be delivered to the Dean of Westminster.
-----------------------------------------
The most
important line of this ‘swearing of the oath’ as far as the British people are
concerned is the very first line promise of the Queen, to, “Govern the Peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Ireland”. Which, in truth, and, in reality; she fails to do. And, it is
interesting to note that during the “Queen’s Speech” delivered by ELIZABETH THE
SECOND, at each ceremonial “Opening of Parliament”, Her Majesty, prefaces every
paragraph of her speech, with the words: “My Government”; “My Government will do this”, or, “My Government will do that...”
But, it is
all a wicked sham. ELIZABETHE THE SECOND, does not “Govern Her People” as by
‘precedent of law’ she is required to do.
Every
‘Reigning Monarch’ of England occupying the British throne is required by
‘precedent of law’ to honour the “Original
Contract”. This is the ‘unwritten contract’ existing between King and
Subject founded upon the principle that, “Allegiance
is given to the Liege Lord, for the protection of the Liege Lord”. Whereby,
all, “Subjects of the Crown”, are required by law to give allegiance to each ‘Reigning
Monarch’, for as long as a Monarch shall reign. And, whereby, in return for
this allegiance given; the ‘Reigning Monarch’ provides the protection of the
Subject; protecting them from the tyranny, of the abuses and the ‘prejudice’ of
Parliament. Even though this ‘original contract’ is unwritten, it is fully
established and enshrined in law, by the, ‘precedent of law’, whereby, King James the Second, was removed from
the throne.
In 1688 the
CONVENTION (Parliament) removed King
James II from the throne; for, “Breaking
the Original Contract betwixt King and People”. The CONVENTION ruled: that
thereby he had abdicated the throne, and, in consequence, declared, that the
throne was therefore vacant. Prince
William of Orange was offered the throne; and, he became the next King.
In February 1688, The CONVENTION mounted a
very important debate, “The Debate at Large”, held between
both Lords and Commons; in the ‘Painted Chamber’
of the House of Commons; specifically to debate the words “Abdicate” and “The Throne
is Vacant”.
The outcome of this debate resolved that both Lords and
Commons agreed that James II had
indeed abdicated the throne and, that, the throne was vacant. But, during this
debate two very important criteria in respect to the protection of “Subjects of
the Crown”, became established, in English
law.
The Speaker
of this debate, 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."
And, in respect to the ‘Lineal Descent’,
All,
subsequent ‘Reigning Monarch’s’ sitting on the British throne, and, the
original contract; the CONVENTION ruled thus:
“The contract is as a binding upon
the Successor as well as it was on the Deposed, if the Successor broke the
contract he too could be Deposed”.
Sir George Treby said:
"I beg leave to say something to
what this Noble Lord has last spoken unto : When I call this Point of the Vacancy
of the Throne a Conclusion, I did not mean altogether to exclude Abdication
from being a Conclusion from the Particulars enumerated before; for,
indeed, it is in the nature of a double Conclusion : One, from the
particular Facts mentioned, That thereby King James has Abdicated the
Government.
The other, from the
Abdication, That thereby the Throne is Vacant: By the Instanced
Acts, he hath Abdicated the Government; and by his Abdicating the Government,
the Throne is Vacant. As to the rest of that which his Lordship is pleased
to say, I perceive he does (as he must) agree to me, That a King may
Renounce by Acts, as well as Wards or Writings"..."when he doth Violate,
not a particular Law, but all the Fundamentals; not Injure a particular
Person in Religion, Liberty, or Property, but falls upon the whole Constitution
it self, What doth all this Speak?
He therein in
faith,
I will no more
keep within my limited Authority, nor hold my Kingly Office upon such
Terms. This title I had by the Original Contract between King and People; I
Renounce that, and will Assume another Title to myself; That is, such a Title,
as by which I may Act, as if there was no such Law to circumscribe my
Authority.
Where shall any Man
come to have Redress in such a Case as this, when the Malefactor comes to be
Party, unto whom all Applications for Relief and Redress from Injuries should
be made, and so he himself shall be a Judge of his own Breaches of
Law."..."It is because the King hath thus violated the Constitution,
by which the Law stands, as the Rule both of the King's Government, and
the Peoples Obedience, that we say, He hath Abdicated and Renounced the Government;
for all other particular Breaches of Law, the Subject may have Remedy in the
ordinary Courts of Justice, or the extraordinary Court of Parliamentary
Proceedings : But where such an Attempt as this is made on the "Essence
of the Constitution", it is not We that have brought ourselves into
this state of Nature, but Those who have reduced our Legal well-established
Frame of Government into such a state of Confusion, as we are now seeking a
Redress unto."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: This conference “The Debate at Large” setting out all the
speeches of both Lords and Commons can be accessed in a FREE e-book format
provided by ‘Google Play Books’ here:
Reading this entire debate, laid out in clear and specific detail, one
can easily determine the true responsibilities, as, are required by law, of
each ‘Reigning Monarch’ sitting upon the English throne.
Each ‘Reigning Monarch’ is required by precedent of law to
protect all “Subjects” of the Crown.. And, in order to carry out that duty and
role, they are provided with two ‘legal instruments’ that have been
specifically designed for the protection of the people.
These are, “The Royal Assent” and “The Royal Prerogative”.
- To encourage
Ministers of Government.
- To warn
Ministers of Government.
- Whenever the
wishes of the people are in direct conflict with the actions of the
Legislators, (Parliament); to order the immediate dissolution of
Parliament.
Sadly, Her Majesty the Queen, has been very remiss in carrying out this
duty.
In the General Election of 2010 the ‘Peoples Democratic Vote’ determined
two things: (a), that no political party should have a ‘majority’ in
Parliament; and, (b), that there should be a “Conservative led Minority
Government”. This was the clear and specific, ‘wishes of the people’ declared
by that democratic election vote.
However, the leaders of the political parties, elected to parliament in
that election, did not like that result. So they determined that they could, ignore
the peoples vote, and, then to proceed to create a ‘coalition
administration masquerading as government’, entirely on their own. In ignoring,
‘The Peoples Vote’ in this way, they, prejudiced the people; and,
thus, they flouted and breached the, precedent of law, set out in the, “Statute
in Force/Bill of Rights1689/The Said Rights Claimed,” (Shown below).
Here was the clear and emphatic ‘evidence’ that the, “Wishes of the
people were in direct conflict with the actions of the Legislators”. Yet, ELIZABETH
THE SECOND, failed to intervene. Her Majesty ought to have
ordered, the immediate dissolution of Parliament.
She did nothing, and, consequently she failed to protect her
“Subjects”; and, thus, today, the British people are being governed by a wholly
illegal coalition administration; that has no legality at all.
I, issue a
direct challenge to any and all that claim that this present coalition
administration has the lawful validity to govern. I, challenge them to produce,
the actual ‘legal instruments’ that verifies the legality. I, assert, and,
contend, that there is no such legal instrument, in existence, at all.
There are two further specific instances where ELIZABETH THE SECOND has
failed to protect “Subjects of the Crown”.
The WHIPS
political party activity in Parliament.
Her Majesty the Queen knows very well that the WHIPS in Parliament
‘prejudice the people’.
The WHIPS political party diktat and instructions issued to Members of Parliament each week overrules and supplants all rightful influence placed upon Members of Parliament, by the Constituent. This 'prejudices the people', thereby, flouting and breaching the, “Statute in Force/Bill of Rights 1689”, in the paragraph, “The Said Rights Claimed. Yet, she has done nothing at all to ‘protect the people’ from the travesty of this abuse.
The
JUDICIARY, and the conspiracy against the People..
Her Majesty the Queen also knows very well that the Judiciary has
conspired against the People by constantly refusing to allow the testing,
questioning, and, the challenge to Parliament in their Courts. Persistently
proclaiming for this denial, that, “Article 9” of the “Bill of Rights 1689”, as
the law, prevents such challenge. But, both Her Majesty, and, the Judiciary must
be fully aware that, for Parliament to ‘enact’ “Article 9”, or, any of the
other “Premises” of that Bill, Parliament may not ‘prejudice the people’. Therefore,
whenever Parliament does ‘prejudice the people’; anyone may challenge
Parliament, in the Courts.
Yet, ELIZABETH THE SECOND, has done nothing, to protect the people from
this abuse.
Here is the text of the paragraph in the, “Bill of Rights 1689”, that
provides this obligation upon Parliament when ‘enacting’ “Article 9”,
“And they do Claime Demand and Insist upon all and singular The Premises
as their undoubted Rights and Liberties and that noe Declarations Judgements
Doeings or Proceedings to the Prejudice of the People, in any of the said Premises,
ought in any wise to be drawne hereafter, into Consequence or Example”
Finally, there is the ‘myth’ of, “CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHY”, to resolve.
It is claimed by many that, ‘Constitutional Monarchy’, relieves or
prevents the “Reigning Monarch” from carrying out this ‘protection’ of the
People. That, the, obligation of complying with the, “Original Contract”, only
applies to an, “Absolute Monarchy”;. And, that, the ‘Reigning Monarch’,
now today, has no obligation to comply.
Yet, this is pure ‘myth’ and fantasy. Because, as long as a ‘Reigning
Monarch’ sits upon the English throne, they will always be bound by the
“Original Contract” to protect the People; and, failure to provide that
protection, abdicates the throne. The legal precedent, of the, “Bill of
Rights 1689”; the abdication of King James II; and, the reality of the, “The Glorious Revolution”, seals
that obligation; in, LAW.
No comments:
Post a Comment