Post by NFA on May 7, 2023 9:56:54 GMT 8
[ Australia's Monarch as Well ]
[Transcript] – Today we were invited to witness something of profound importance.
A promise made … an oath taken.
For those who care about the truth, an oath is no small thing.
An oath is a solemn appeal to God… asking him to bear witness to a promise.
But more revealing by far is how a person making a promise or taking an oath actually behaves… what they do.
A person might promise in a court of law to tell the truth … on a battlefield to be steadfast to comrades until death.
But the proof of the pudding lies in how the taker of the oath lives their life.
It would have been easy to be distracted today by pageantry and pomp… all the music and marching… that’s the name of the game on a day like today… razzle dazzle ‘em.
But the heart of the matter of the coronation of King Charles III… like the grain of sand at the heart of a pearl, was a promise.
The King’s promise to us … the people.
A promise made … an oath taken.
For those who care about the truth, an oath is no small thing.
An oath is a solemn appeal to God… asking him to bear witness to a promise.
But more revealing by far is how a person making a promise or taking an oath actually behaves… what they do.
A person might promise in a court of law to tell the truth … on a battlefield to be steadfast to comrades until death.
But the proof of the pudding lies in how the taker of the oath lives their life.
It would have been easy to be distracted today by pageantry and pomp… all the music and marching… that’s the name of the game on a day like today… razzle dazzle ‘em.
But the heart of the matter of the coronation of King Charles III… like the grain of sand at the heart of a pearl, was a promise.
The King’s promise to us … the people.
Charles promised and swore to govern the people of this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland according to our laws and customs.
The laws and customs in question are not the endless pages of legislation drafted and enacted by here today and gone tomorrow politicians in parliament… but ‘The Law’.
The law that is old beyond the reach of memory, which is to say the immutable law of the land, which is the common law that by centuries, if not by millennia, predates any legislation drafted and enacted by any parliament in Westminster.
The law of this land of ours is that we are free people.
We don’t stand in line to receive our freedom bit by bit like breadcrumbs dropped from on high.
On the contrary we are born free, and woe should betide any that seeks to compromise that freedom.
The intention of the common law is that we govern ourselves with minimal interference from the state knowing as we do right from wrong.
In an ideal world we tell the state what to do, enabling them as so many administrators.
We appoint as our most esteemed servants those we trust to preserve our freedom.
Implicit in our employment of them as servants is the understanding that if they fail … we reserve the right to be done with them and find others better suited.
If you doubt me, see, for example, the Declaration of Abroath, of 1320, that most defiant assertion of freedom … the spirit of which went around the world and back again.
Here in Britain, we are invited to trust that we live in what is called a constitutional monarchy.
In our constitutional monarchy the monarch is our most senior public servant.
Each of us is a sovereign individual. Our monarch is also sovereign, the first sovereign among equals. And he is our servant.
In 1688, on the accession of King William of Orange, the parliament of the day had the treasonous temerity to claim that it, the parliament, was sovereign.
Ever since then, some parliamentarians have repeated the lie.
That parliament is sovereign.
In fact, our constitution makes plain only the people are sovereign.
The constitution, and the natural law that long predates the constitution puts sovereignty utterly beyond the reach of parliament … for all time. Parliament can no more attain sovereignty than touch the face of God.
Before and after 1688, and then the Bill of Rights of 1689, one parliament after another sought to claim sovereignty over the people. All have lied by so doing.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again … without fear of contradiction and because it must be repeated until enough people realise the significance … it is only and always the people that are sovereign.
Today we watched and listened as King Charles III promised to govern according to the law, which is to say our ancient common law.
He thereby promised to defend our sovereignty as individuals and the sovereignty of this Britain.
Implicit in his promise before God is that he understands and believes that Britain is sovereign and that he, as monarch, will keep it so.
Untroubled by the interference of outsiders great and small.
Not to put too fine a point on it, by outsiders great and small I mean the usual suspects … the WEF, the UN, the WHO and the rest of the international acronym gangs.
Those are unelected, unaccountable bodies, all seeking a hand in ruling over this country and all countries.
Under the terms of an amended pandemic preparedness treaty, the WHO would award itself jaw-dropping powers.
It proposes to empower itself to declare pandemics or states of climate emergency – and then to lock us down and impose whatever other restrictions on our freedom that they see fit.
This is what I mean about profound importance.
By his coronation oath King Charles swore to maintain the integrity of Britain and to protect that integrity against any external entity. He promised that we would remain free.
So far so sovereign … but all of this begs a question:
Are we a sovereign people or not?
Are we still an independent entity with meaningful borders and supported by the commitment of our government to maintain the independence and sovereignty that our monarch swore to defend this afternoon?
I ask this question because, considering what has been going on in recent years, a person would be forgiven for doubting that nation states, in the West at least, are still a thing.
Today of all days … coronation day … it seems appropriate to think about all this.
If we are free people, of the sort King Charles just swore to defend, according to our law, if there are any nation states in the West, why did we so recently listen to that Charles, then Prince of Wales and heir to the throne, talk about how we should build back better?
In the same days and weeks that the Prince of Wales talked about the need to build back better.
So did one western leader after another.
If this is a world of independent sovereign states … how on earth did it come to pass that they all, apparently, had the same thought, called for the same things, at exactly the same time, as though they were in lockstep and reading from the same script?
And if there was a script for the leaders of the West … who wrote it?
Build back better … a narrow window of opportunity … the great reset … how come so many leaders of allegedly sovereign nations spoke the same words at the same time?
King Charles, when he was Prince of Wales, stood shoulder to shoulder with those calling for the Great Reset … Build Back Better. He has undoubtedly been an outspoken globalist committed to the notion of centralised control and decision making.
Today he swore an oath to govern according to the law of this land of Britain, this sovereign nation of Britain.
Promises matter.
As I have already said, what matters most is not what a person says. What matters more is what a person does.
Net Zero… Digital ID… CBDCs… social credit scores… surveillance societies… 15-minute cities… the policies pursued by all those unelected, unaccountable bodies… all of those are erosions of our freedom.
It turns out building back better isn’t better at all – not for the likes of you and me.
I have no time at all for republicanism, by the way.
Elected heads of state … which almost inevitably means ex-politicians. That way lies President Blair … President Johnson … President Starmer.
The fundamental problem … and threat … of politicians as heads of state is that they are creatures of the politics from which they spring … like gargoyles on the walls of a cathedral.
In an imperfect world populated by imperfect people, I would make the Hobson’s Choice of a constitutional monarchy every time.
The point of a monarchy … of hereditary peers as well … is that they are … theoretically at least … invested in the long term. Governments come and go … with their egos, petty point scoring and manifestos … focused always on political expediency … the hope of winning the next election.
But for good or ill the upper house and the monarch are supposed to consider the impact fifty years from now, a hundred years from now.
Theoretically they see to the planting of the trees that will provide the necessary shade for our great grandchildren.
Any government will, given the freedom to do so, draft legislation that will enable it to do whatever it wants. Any government will put itself in a position from which it cannot be challenged or removed.
There’s another question worth considering: should a government have the power to do what it wants … or not?
If you think not … then it’s worth looking again at what was attempted by that parliament of 1688 … when the most ambitious clique in the land seized the opportunity to put itself above the monarch … and therefore above all of us.
Long ago, long before Magna Carta or any other written document, our ancestors understood that individual freedoms were paramount.
The constitution that evolved here in Britain, making us a nation of sovereign individuals, reflected that ancient wisdom.Governments can seek to paper over it all they want … to tell us this or that part of the constitution has been superseded by an Act of Parliament. They can even pretend the constitution is not there. They can distract us with marching bands, bunting and flags.
But the fact remains … and today of all days it is worth remembering … if not shouting from the rooftops … we are free people. That much is inalienable and undeniable. If a coronation like today’s is to mean anything at all, then it reaffirms that freedom … and promises it will last forever.
So I ask again: are we a constitutional monarchy – in a way that means anything – or are we not?
Are we a democracy – and having the vote every few years is not democracy in any meaningful sense – or are we not?
People will tell you we don’t have a constitution here in Britain. In the US, people hold up their constitution like Captain America’s shield. In the end, you might even say no constitution is required. In the end, it’s about right and wrong. Truth and lies. And we all know the difference.
But our constitution does exist and it carefully puts ultimate power beyond the reach of government or any other usurper. Our constitution enshrines ultimate power where it belongs … with the people.
To anyone who says our constitution was superseded by the act of any government, I ask:
Do you accept a government can gather unto itself the power to do whatever it likes?
If the answer is yes, then I say that you accept despotism and tyranny.
Here’s the thing: I want someone somewhere to respect us enough to tell us the truth about Britain today. Then we’ll know where we stand.
Do the powers that be truly regard us as free people, living in a sovereign nation, or do they not?
Today of all days, it’s not too much ask.
[link]
The laws and customs in question are not the endless pages of legislation drafted and enacted by here today and gone tomorrow politicians in parliament… but ‘The Law’.
The law that is old beyond the reach of memory, which is to say the immutable law of the land, which is the common law that by centuries, if not by millennia, predates any legislation drafted and enacted by any parliament in Westminster.
The law of this land of ours is that we are free people.
We don’t stand in line to receive our freedom bit by bit like breadcrumbs dropped from on high.
On the contrary we are born free, and woe should betide any that seeks to compromise that freedom.
The intention of the common law is that we govern ourselves with minimal interference from the state knowing as we do right from wrong.
In an ideal world we tell the state what to do, enabling them as so many administrators.
We appoint as our most esteemed servants those we trust to preserve our freedom.
Implicit in our employment of them as servants is the understanding that if they fail … we reserve the right to be done with them and find others better suited.
If you doubt me, see, for example, the Declaration of Abroath, of 1320, that most defiant assertion of freedom … the spirit of which went around the world and back again.
Here in Britain, we are invited to trust that we live in what is called a constitutional monarchy.
In our constitutional monarchy the monarch is our most senior public servant.
Each of us is a sovereign individual. Our monarch is also sovereign, the first sovereign among equals. And he is our servant.
In 1688, on the accession of King William of Orange, the parliament of the day had the treasonous temerity to claim that it, the parliament, was sovereign.
Ever since then, some parliamentarians have repeated the lie.
That parliament is sovereign.
In fact, our constitution makes plain only the people are sovereign.
The constitution, and the natural law that long predates the constitution puts sovereignty utterly beyond the reach of parliament … for all time. Parliament can no more attain sovereignty than touch the face of God.
Before and after 1688, and then the Bill of Rights of 1689, one parliament after another sought to claim sovereignty over the people. All have lied by so doing.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again … without fear of contradiction and because it must be repeated until enough people realise the significance … it is only and always the people that are sovereign.
Today we watched and listened as King Charles III promised to govern according to the law, which is to say our ancient common law.
He thereby promised to defend our sovereignty as individuals and the sovereignty of this Britain.
Implicit in his promise before God is that he understands and believes that Britain is sovereign and that he, as monarch, will keep it so.
Untroubled by the interference of outsiders great and small.
Not to put too fine a point on it, by outsiders great and small I mean the usual suspects … the WEF, the UN, the WHO and the rest of the international acronym gangs.
Those are unelected, unaccountable bodies, all seeking a hand in ruling over this country and all countries.
Under the terms of an amended pandemic preparedness treaty, the WHO would award itself jaw-dropping powers.
It proposes to empower itself to declare pandemics or states of climate emergency – and then to lock us down and impose whatever other restrictions on our freedom that they see fit.
This is what I mean about profound importance.
By his coronation oath King Charles swore to maintain the integrity of Britain and to protect that integrity against any external entity. He promised that we would remain free.
So far so sovereign … but all of this begs a question:
Are we a sovereign people or not?
Are we still an independent entity with meaningful borders and supported by the commitment of our government to maintain the independence and sovereignty that our monarch swore to defend this afternoon?
I ask this question because, considering what has been going on in recent years, a person would be forgiven for doubting that nation states, in the West at least, are still a thing.
Today of all days … coronation day … it seems appropriate to think about all this.
If we are free people, of the sort King Charles just swore to defend, according to our law, if there are any nation states in the West, why did we so recently listen to that Charles, then Prince of Wales and heir to the throne, talk about how we should build back better?
In the same days and weeks that the Prince of Wales talked about the need to build back better.
So did one western leader after another.
If this is a world of independent sovereign states … how on earth did it come to pass that they all, apparently, had the same thought, called for the same things, at exactly the same time, as though they were in lockstep and reading from the same script?
And if there was a script for the leaders of the West … who wrote it?
Build back better … a narrow window of opportunity … the great reset … how come so many leaders of allegedly sovereign nations spoke the same words at the same time?
King Charles, when he was Prince of Wales, stood shoulder to shoulder with those calling for the Great Reset … Build Back Better. He has undoubtedly been an outspoken globalist committed to the notion of centralised control and decision making.
Today he swore an oath to govern according to the law of this land of Britain, this sovereign nation of Britain.
Promises matter.
As I have already said, what matters most is not what a person says. What matters more is what a person does.
Net Zero… Digital ID… CBDCs… social credit scores… surveillance societies… 15-minute cities… the policies pursued by all those unelected, unaccountable bodies… all of those are erosions of our freedom.
It turns out building back better isn’t better at all – not for the likes of you and me.
I have no time at all for republicanism, by the way.
Elected heads of state … which almost inevitably means ex-politicians. That way lies President Blair … President Johnson … President Starmer.
The fundamental problem … and threat … of politicians as heads of state is that they are creatures of the politics from which they spring … like gargoyles on the walls of a cathedral.
In an imperfect world populated by imperfect people, I would make the Hobson’s Choice of a constitutional monarchy every time.
The point of a monarchy … of hereditary peers as well … is that they are … theoretically at least … invested in the long term. Governments come and go … with their egos, petty point scoring and manifestos … focused always on political expediency … the hope of winning the next election.
But for good or ill the upper house and the monarch are supposed to consider the impact fifty years from now, a hundred years from now.
Theoretically they see to the planting of the trees that will provide the necessary shade for our great grandchildren.
Any government will, given the freedom to do so, draft legislation that will enable it to do whatever it wants. Any government will put itself in a position from which it cannot be challenged or removed.
There’s another question worth considering: should a government have the power to do what it wants … or not?
If you think not … then it’s worth looking again at what was attempted by that parliament of 1688 … when the most ambitious clique in the land seized the opportunity to put itself above the monarch … and therefore above all of us.
Long ago, long before Magna Carta or any other written document, our ancestors understood that individual freedoms were paramount.
The constitution that evolved here in Britain, making us a nation of sovereign individuals, reflected that ancient wisdom.Governments can seek to paper over it all they want … to tell us this or that part of the constitution has been superseded by an Act of Parliament. They can even pretend the constitution is not there. They can distract us with marching bands, bunting and flags.
But the fact remains … and today of all days it is worth remembering … if not shouting from the rooftops … we are free people. That much is inalienable and undeniable. If a coronation like today’s is to mean anything at all, then it reaffirms that freedom … and promises it will last forever.
So I ask again: are we a constitutional monarchy – in a way that means anything – or are we not?
Are we a democracy – and having the vote every few years is not democracy in any meaningful sense – or are we not?
People will tell you we don’t have a constitution here in Britain. In the US, people hold up their constitution like Captain America’s shield. In the end, you might even say no constitution is required. In the end, it’s about right and wrong. Truth and lies. And we all know the difference.
But our constitution does exist and it carefully puts ultimate power beyond the reach of government or any other usurper. Our constitution enshrines ultimate power where it belongs … with the people.
To anyone who says our constitution was superseded by the act of any government, I ask:
Do you accept a government can gather unto itself the power to do whatever it likes?
If the answer is yes, then I say that you accept despotism and tyranny.
Here’s the thing: I want someone somewhere to respect us enough to tell us the truth about Britain today. Then we’ll know where we stand.
Do the powers that be truly regard us as free people, living in a sovereign nation, or do they not?
Today of all days, it’s not too much ask.
[link]