Wednesday, 2 July 2008

Sovereigns selected and deselected

Charles 1st being deselected

Some think that a British Sovereign inherits the throne and sits on it until he or she dies, but British history shows that the selection and indeed deselection of the Sovereign was often made by the people to ensure that they had a ruler they could trust and who was up to the job. When the British people believed that a Sovereign had violated his Coronation Oath - to protect the laws and give them justice - they often sent him packing.

Cat has prepared a partial list of sovereigns, some of them selected, many of them deselected. I think you'll notice some modern echoes -

SELECTED Alfred (871-899) is the great pre-Norman example of a king selected by the Witan, which passed over his elder brother's son.
SELECTED Alfred's grandson AEthelstan (924-940) was first chosen king by the Mercians, and later named king of Britain by an assembly of less powerful rulers. He held his kingdom together with ‘national assemblies, in which every local interest was represented' (DNB).

SELECTED Edward the Confessor was invited by English magnates to return from exile and become king. On his death the magnates elected Harold.

DESELECTED William II (1087-1100), the son of William the Conqueror, was "deselected" by an arrow in the heart. Supposedly a hunting accident, the archer was never identified. There is some evidence the arrow was shot because William had enclosed common lands to enlarge the New Forest.

SELECTED Henry I (1100-1135) was crowned king when his brother died, in preference to his elder brother Robert. He agreed to affirm the Charter of Liberties and the essential principle that no one, not even the king, is above the law.

SELECTED Henry II (1154-1189) was selected to rule after Stephen.

DESELECTED John (1199-1216) broke his Coronation Oath by not giving justice. He was forced to affirm Magna Carta. When he resisted, the "Holy Army of God" marched against him, with the citizens of all the major towns in support, and John died on the campaign trail.

TEMPORARILY DESELECTED Henry III (1216-1272) was made a prisoner when he refused to uphold Magna Carta and the Provisions of Oxford and Westminster. The struggle that ensued saw the birth of Parliament.

DESELECTED Edward II (1284-1327) was deposed due to extravagant favouritism and his refusal to carry through on promises of reform, including "ejecting evil counsellors". His government 'could not be mended, only ended' (DNB). Edward resigned his throne in favour of his son.

DESELECTED Richard II (1377-1399) troubled the House of Commons with his heavy taxation and his inner circle of favourites and ministers. Richard's claims of prerogative were backed by the courts, but not by the people or the lords, who executed his inner circle. Richard regained power, used the treason law as a means of political and personal oppression and violated Magna Carta. Parliament charged Richard with breaking his Coronation Oath, and thereby breaking the legal bond between himself and his people (DNB). He was deposed "by authority of the clergy and people" with the help of Henry Bolingbroke.

DESELECTED Henry VI (1421-1471) inherited the throne when he was a baby. He was more interested in promoting education - he established Eton and King's College, Cambridge - than in ruling. He could not control greedy courtiers, remedy his court's inefficiency and lack of accountability, provide fair and effective justice or arrange an honourable peace with France. War resumed, trade collapsed, Henry had a breakdown and was deposed.

TEMPORARILY DESELECTED Edward IV (1461-1470, 1471-1483) Rebellions to his rule arose due to high taxes, a greedy court circle and lax justice, and the thorny Wars of the Roses. Edward was forced to flee to the Netherlands, mounted a successful invasion and reestablished his authority in Britain. Unfortunately he was indifferent to the concept of parliament, elevated persons rather than the law and created the new and unlawful tax inventions of 'benevolences', an early example of double-speak.

DESELECTED Charles I (1625-1649) engaged in a great battle with Parliament over taxes, the right to petition government for redress of grievances and his belief in an absolute kingship superior to constitutional law. He lost the subsequent Civil War and the battle of ideas and was beheaded.

SELECTED Charles II (1660-1685), the son of Charles I, was invited back to England to serve as King.

DESELECTED James II (1685-1688) succeeded to the throne on the death of his brother Charles, but was forced to flee when English cities rose in rebellion. The people believed that he was trying to disarm those who opposed him and reinstate Catholicism.

SELECTED William and Mary (1689-1694) were invited to rule England by "A People's Convention". Mary and William were accepted when they affirmed the liberties described in the Declaration of Right as part of their covenant with the people.

DESELECTED George III (1760-1820) retained his crown to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, but Brits in America rejected his rule over the issues of taxes, the right to be armed and the right to self-government.


The modern echoes include high taxes, lack of justice, accountability and fairness, inefficiency and greed, a refusal to abide by Magna Carta, dishonourable peace, and, in the case of John and James, the fear that the kingdom would be ruled by foreign powers. Behind all these concerns lay the breaking of the Coronation Oath.

History provides food for thought as we ask HRH Queen Elizabeth II why she gave her Royal Assent to the Lisbon Treaty, which subverts Britain's sovereignty and common law. Does she believe she lacks the constitutional authority to refuse her assent to Parliament?

It is the people, not Parliament, who give her constitutional authority. She had a constitutional obligation to refuse the Treaty, which is an EU constitution.

To date three presidents of European countries have refused to sign the Treaty.

This government is extremely unpopular. The Queen has the power to dissolve Parliament.

http://www.britsattheirbest.com/


8 comments:

Anonymous said...

Ah yes but todays people are better educated and more worldly arent they?, or perhaps all that overload of information has made them too cynical to the point where they do nothing.

johnofgwent said...

A swift observation on 'deselecting' the monarch, if I may.

It's only High Treason IF YOU FAIL.

I have a feeling I first heard that in the last episode of the TV rendition of James Clavell's "Shogun" about twenty years ago

But the words sort-of stuck.

And it's true isn't it.

Anonymous said...

Let us not forget Edward VIII.
Not forced out by the people.

alan143 said...

I think if the Queen dissolved this hated Parliament tonight, it would be the crowning moment of her life.

And there's no doubt, is there, that the whole of the Anglosphere would be grateful to her if she did. Even the Irish have recently shown themselves loyal, in their referendum, to the freedom of the British Isles.

We only want the call of a known leader.

Sir Henry Morgan said...

JoG

Somewhat similar to:

"The only justification for rebellion is success"

Anonymous said...

Just two of a kind.
She meaning LIZ has accepted the title LADY OF EUROPE.
That tells me all i need to know the German is loyal to her own race not mine.

Rights
On January 23rd, 2008 BOB (not verified) says:
I endorse almost every thing that you say ,on the subject of the monarchy however one must be cautious,have you read her coronation oath?has she fulfilled it in any part?I would maintain that she is just as guilty of treason as are the entire parliament,why has she not defended our religion,as she swore,why will she sign the eu constitution,which is in direct violation ,of1215 and 1688,why is her son directly involved with the oppressive "bilderburg" group,as are most of the politicians in power,in this country and in europe,and what will she get out of abolishing her country and her office,it can not be wealth,as she is already fabulously wealthy,(along with rothschlid,they together control 80% of the worlds uranium)why is she so willing to sell her subjects into bondage to a foreign power,there is only one remedy for treason of this kind,and that is the block!

reply Email this page
Her majesty has failed us.
On March 31st, 2008 Roger hayes (not verified) says:
Bob,
You are absolutely right... The Queen has betrayed us. I am now of the opinion that I must swear allegiance to myself and others like me who will defend our independence. We are in conflict with our own parliamnt and Monarch. And I think I know where this is going to end.

SHE WITH BLAIR IN 1999 SIGNED TO DESTROY THE TREASON ACT TO SAVE BOTH HIS AND HER NECK.
BEING TAUGHT THE CONSTITUTION BY A FABIAN HE FAILED TO TELL HER THIS LAW IS WRITTEN IN STONE!

THEY DEPEND ON OUR PAST FEELINGS FOR THE MONARCH.
WE NEED A CROMWELL.....
The British royal family changed their last name from Saxe-Coburg-Gotha to Windsor in 1917.
Not much different to a few other MPs that changed theirs to hide their true origins.
IN OTHER WORDS A BUNCH OF FOREIGNERS ARE IN POWER HERE NOT THE BRITISH.

Anonymous said...

I must now invite you to take a good look at the Laws of the Constitution, which are designed for the purpose of preventing all such disasters as are now facing us (because of our own stupidity and laziness in the choice of the representatives. Speaking for us at a great financial cost to all of us).

1. The Laws of the Constitution provide that Our Allegiance to the Crown must be Absolute, and in return for this allegiance, we are guaranteed the protection of the Crown – and all Servants & Ministers of the Crown - in all meaningful areas of our lives. (Declaration & Bill of Rights, 1689).
NOTICE LEGALLY EMPOWERED..
2. We are legally empowered to enter into Lawful Rebellion against the Crown, if the Laws of Our Constitution are broken – on the clear understanding that we must return to our obedience, when Right has been restored (Magna Carta, 1215);

3. That it is an Act of Treason to remove the Sovereign from the full; lawful and Supreme exercise of Government. (Treason Act 1351 & Treason & Felony Act, 1848):

4. That it is an Act of Treason to provide Aid &/or Comfort to Traitors (Treason & Felony Act, 1848):

5. That the People of England (&, by extension, of the UK) may NOT be subjected to the Temporal (ie Civil) or Spiritual Rule of Foreign Princes; Prelates; States or Potentates (Declaration & Bill of Rights, 1689 & The Privy Council Oath that is sworn by all Cabinet Members of Every Government, whenever any person is admitted to ANY Cabinet by ANY Sovereign or Prime Minister).

It will be clear to you that notwithstanding all of these safeguards that are provided by the Laws of the Constitution, present-day politicians are now selling our country into the hands of the European Union, in breach of the law.

This does not mean that the Laws of the Constitution are Wrong – It means only that present-day politicians are acting outside of the Law, and in a manner that is inconsistent with the Oaths of Office that they have undertaken.

In consequence of the treachery to the British Crown & People that is now being given effect by the Liars & Thieves who are sitting in the Queen’s Government , it is time for Open Rebellion to begin (and to continue until such time as Right has been restored)!

INFACT BY DOING NOTHING WE ALSO ARE BREAKING OUR LAWS...

Anonymous said...

Previously in England before the German royals took to the throne Royal assent wasn't automatic.
This in law is not legal but she has allowed royal assent to be signed away by the bunch of corrupt scum we have in westminster.

The Fiscal Prerogative say’s …to leave as much money in the people’s pockets as possible as taxation is only for the governance of this country… It is not to be used for paying for wars, ID cards, more cameras or any other purpose; it is solely for the reason stated.

Think about it another way – for every penny you pay in tax you are basically responsible for every death in Iraq and Afghanistan, of their people killed by a British soldier and for every British death. For without your money, they could not have gone to war in the first place.

Is the image on the right hard to look at? Does it disturb you? Because it should do, this is what your money is spent on. This is what your payment in Tax could have contributed to, another innocent childs, needless death.

Oh and by the way we cannot go to war against another nation, unless that nation, declares war on us first (Constitutional Law) and as far as I know Iraq and Afghanistan have never declared war on the UK or America and the same Law applies to them as well.

Regardless of what the Arab dominated UN announce when their arms are twisted up behind their backs.
Brown hands OUR money over willy nilly to African states that will never know democracy as most are as corrupt as themselves.
OUR MONEY FOR OUR OWN GOOD NOT TO WRECK THIS COUNTRY.
NORE TO PAY ILLEGAL FINES TO SUPPORT THE COFFERS OF THE NWO.

ENOUGH I SAY,ENOUGH!
DEFEND OUR CONSTITUTION!