“Monarchy is antiquated, irrational and worst of all hereditary elitism. Only fuddy-duddy types like Hyacinth Bucket are monarchists, the type that decorate their mantlepiece with Royal Doultons.”
Monarchists endure this kind of mockery everyday. The resolute individual will rise above the mockery and stick firmly to their conviction. The charge of hereditary elitism is no doubt indicative of a manifest ignorance, the mistaken view that succession is entirely a matter of inheritance and birthright. Since, 1689 it is clear that parliament may alter the line of succession, and the sovereign must fulfil certain statutory duties.
As for the charge that monarchy is less than ideal because it is “antiquated” and “irrational”, one should surely judge any system based on results and human experience. Since, 1689 Great Britain has been indisputably the most free and stable democracy in the world by any comparison.
As for Republican constitutional arrangements…
France?
Since the revolution of 1789 France has had five republics. Edmund Burke predicted in 1790 that the French Republic would be plagued by instability, eventually collapse and see the ascendancy of a military autocrat – they got General Napoleon Bonaparte! They have also had a fascist Regime under Vichy. The current Fifth Republic was implemented in 1958 following the collapse of the Fourth Republic.
USA?
Apparently the ideal Republic, however, this did not prevent a bloody civil war between 1861 and 1864. (Ironically, ‘slavery” was a major reason for this war, a practice abolished by the British Parliament in 1832.) Today the president exercises powers that would have been inconceivable to the founding fathers. A president can effectively rule by executive order, making directives that circumvent the constitution. (E.g. Executive Order 9066 FDR used his authority as Commander-in-Chief to send ethnic groups to internment camps.)
Germany?
The Weimar Constitution was flawed, a flaw that Hitler exploited in 1934 following the death of Hindenburg.
Lest we forget the attrocities that occured in the USSR, Vietnam, China, Cambodia, Yugoslavia, the Czech Republic and Ethiopia that were direct consequences of a republicanism !!!!!
Britain, in contrast, has had a history of stability and freedom that is unparalleled. Somewhere between 1688 and the middle 19th century it’s monarchical system evolved into constitutional monarchy, whereby the sovereign is primarily a constitutional safeguard that plays a passive role in the activities of parliament. The fundamental pillars of this system are Magna Carta, and the Bill of Rights 1689 which enshrined the principle of parliamentary supremacy – and of course the related right of parliament to alter the line of succession.
The beauty of the system is that it was not inspired by ideals, nor drafted by self-proclaimed philosopher Kings. Rather, it is the outcome of spontaneous acts and gradual evolution.
So what events or acts created this constitutional system?
Here is my attempt to trace these acts and events:
Constraints on Sovereign Power:
1100:
The Charter of Liberties, aka Coronation Charter, was a written proclamation by Henry I of England, issued upon his ascension to the throne. It bound the king to certain laws regarding the treatment of church officials and nobles.
1215:
Sixty three clauses requiring that the King renounce certain rights, respect certain legal procedures and accept that he is bound by the law. It explicitly protected certain rights of the King’s subjects. The document guaranteed, inter alia: freedom of the church; redress of feudal grievances; consultation before the imposition of taxes; availability of justice to all; habeus corpus (clause 39); control on the behaviour of of Royal officials. In terms of constraining the power of the monarch clause 61 was crucial. A council of twenty-five barons was appointed to ensure the sovereign observed the charter, gving them the right to wage war on the sovereign if he did not!
Petitition of Right 1628:
Sought to further limit royal preogative. The petitition sought to address: Taxation without Parliament’s consent; forced loans ; arbitrary arrest; imprisonment contrary to Magna Carta; arbitrary interference with property rights; lack of enforcement of habeas corpus; forced billeting of troops; imposition of martial law & exemption of officials from due process. It was supported by Charles II.
Bill of Rights 1689:
Enshrined the principle of parliamentary sovereignty. It is an essential document of English constitutional law, alongside Magna Carta 1215, the Act of Settlement 1701 and the Parliament Acts. It also forms part of the constitution of some other Commonwealth nations, such as Australia! It was a product of the Glorious Revolution, led by William III of Orange Nassu. It was a response to the tendency towards absolute monarchism – in Golden v Hales, 1686, James II had dismissed six judges and solictor general, to secure the decision he wanted. The document guaranteed civil and poltical rights to Englishman, such as: freedom from royal interference with the law (Parliamentary Sovereignty); freedom from taxation by royal prerogative without consent of Parliament; freedom to petition the Monarch; freedom from a peace-time standing army; freedom to elect members of Parliament without interference from the Sovereign; the freedom of speech in Parliament (parliamentary privlege); freedom from cruel and unusual punishments, and excessive bail; and freedom from fines and forfeitures without trial.
Triennial Act 1697:
Stated that parliament is to be called every three years, and guaranteed free speech in parliament.
Civil List Act 1697:
Made the sovereign dependent upon parliament for annual gifts fixed at the begininnig of each reign.
Act of Settlement 1701:
No catholic nor anyone married to a catholic could succeed to the throne. Altered hereditary succession, granting to parliament the right to determine succession to the throne & the conditions under which the crown be held.
Reform Act 1832:
The Reform Act had fundamental consequences for the evolution of constitutional monarchy, it abolished rotten boroughs, expanded and rationalised franchise, and enhanced the power of the House of Commons. The expansion of the electorate made it harder for the sovereign to influence general elections. It meant that the sovereign did not have room to maneouvre and made the acceptance of ministerial advice unavoidable. Party organization became the vehicle through which government was determined.
Queen Victoria (Reign 1837-1901):
Queen Victoria acceded to the throne in 1837 on the death of William IV. Despite her strong Tory sympathies she was a passive monarch whose reign was instrumental to the development of a non-partisan monarchy.
Non-partisanship:
Prince Albert was thought to be a de facto King acting in the name of Queen Victoria. He had been strongly influenced by Baron Stockmar, and took the view that the sovereign was an umpire and arbiter who used his/her power in a non-partisan manner for the benefit of the nation. He took the view that a neutral sovereign would be better able to exert influence over legislation.
Ministerial Appointments:
During the latter half of Victoria’s reign, the Sovereign lost the power to choose and veto ministerial appointments. The only ministerial appointment she successfully vetoed in the latter half of her reign was that of Henry Labouchere, who insulted the monarchy in 1892 and had little popular support.
Dissolution of Parliament:
Victoria thought the sovereign should tread carefully with respect to the dissolution power. In 1846 she told Lord Russell the power to dissolve parliament “ought not to be used except in extreme cases and with a certainty of success. To use this instrument and be defeated is a thing most lowering to the Crown and hurtful to the Country.”
The Rise of Imperial Britain:
1815-1914 is called the imperial century, as indistinct from the two-hundred and thirty-two years of British Empire that preceded it. Britain adopted ‘Pax Brittanica” and radically revised it’s foreign policy, this saw the global spread of the English language, parliamentary democracy, technology, imperial measurements, and English Common Law. The rise of imperial monarchy signaled the end of an active sovereign. As the sovereign’s role extended to Head of the Commonwealth the possibility of exercising an active role in politics became increasingly remote. As the system of responsible government in Britain strengthened it was spread throughout the world.
Imperialism also saw greater autonomy granted to the dominions. During Victoria’s reign in 1888 the first imperial conference was held aka “Colonial Conference.” (This was a precursor to the later Imperial Conferences of 1926 & 1930, which finally severed any political or legal link between the UK and the dominions.)
Power of Parliament to alter the line of Succession:
The power of parliament to alter the line of succession is integeral to constitutional monarchy. Since 1689 it has been clear that parliament may alter the line of succession, and may impose conditions upon the sovereign. No sovereign could succeed without satisfying certain statutory duties. The common law rule of primogeniture still applies, but the statutory rules governing succession have fundamentally changed the nature of British monarchy. To this extent succession is subservient to the will of parliament, and ultimately the British people!
There are four statutory conditions any sovereign must meet:
(i) The Sovereign must declare at the first meeting of parliament after accession, or Coronation, (which ever comes first) faithfulness to Protestantism: now regulated by Accession Declaration Act 1910.
(ii) Sovereign must under Coronation Oath Act 1689, the Act of Settlement 1701 and Accession Act 1901 take an oath at his or her coronation in form prescribed by Statute.
(iii) Sovereign must promise in accordance with 25th Article of the Acts of Union with Scotland 1706, to maintain the Presbyterian church of Scotland.
(iv) Sovereign must be in communion with the Church of England, of which he or she is Supreme Governor: Act of Settlement 1701.
Parliament has twice altered the line of succession since 1689. The first time was in 1701, when the Act of Settlement provided that succession lie with the Electress of Hanover, and her heirs being Protestant. The second time was in 1936, following the abdication of Edward VIII : The Declaration of Abdication Act 1936.
Regency:
Since 1689 it is clear that parliament can alter the line of succession. Parliament may also pass laws to provide for regency, first occurring in 1728 when parliament declared that Queen Caroline could act as sovereign in the absence of King George II.
The Declaration of Abdication Act 1936 installed King George VI as king. His heiress presumptive (now HM Queen Elisabeth II) was under the age of 18, thus necessitating a new Regency Act. The Regency Act 1937 defined a “regent” as: over the age of 21; domiciled in the United Kingdom; and capable of succeeding to the Crown pursuant to conditions in the Act of Settlement 1701. It provided for: (i) a minority of sovereign; (ii) permanent incapacity of sovereign; (iii) temporary incapacity of the sovereign; and (iv) absence from the United Kingdom. In the case of situations (i) and (ii) provisions for regency apply; and in situations (iii) & (iv) a Council of State acts on the monarchs behalf. The act has been amended since 1937, in 1943 and 1952 and fixed anomalies in the 1937 legislation. The 1953 amendment saw the definition of regent extended to “best person” instead of next in line of succession!
Author: W.R.Church
Daniel said
Hey, great post!!
I wonder what might happen if the UK parliment decided to change the line of succession but the Australian parliment disagreed… would we still be subservant to the UK?
wchurch said
That might be a question for Dr Anne Twomey or Professor David Flint.
A few points:
(i) I suspect that the Sue v Hill (1999) ruling on the divisibility of The Crown might be worth looking at here. Since, HM The Queen Elisabeth II is Queen of Australia as distinct from The Queen of Great Britain. Logically, one would think that she would retain her title as The Queen of the Commonwealth of Australia – but then again we are in personal union.
(ii) Statute Westminster (1932) requires that any act to alter succession must be done so with consultation or consent of the dominions (Canada, New Zealand, Australia .etc.) So in effect there is a right of veto given to the dominions.
(iii) The closest we have ever come to this situation was the 1936 Abdication of Edward VIII. It is totally untested.
wchurch said
Thanks for the praise though!!!
wchurch said
Consider this extract from the preamble of the Statute of Westminster 1932:
“And whereas it is meet and proper to set out by way of preamble to this Act that, inasmuch as the Crown is the symbol of the free association of the members of the British Commonwealth of Nations, and as they are united by a common allegiance to the Crown, it would be in accord with the established constitutional position of all the members of the Commonwealth in relation to one another that any alteration in the law touching the Succession to the Throne or the Royal Style and Titles shall hereafter require the assent as well of the Parliaments of all the Dominions as of the Parliament of the United Kingdom.”
Following the abdication of Edward VIII Canada, NZ, Australia and South Africa gave their consent. The parliament of The Irish Free State did not pass legislation ratifying the UK legislation to alter succession until one day after the other dominions – for 24 hours they had a different monarch!
AlexM said
I found your site on technorati and read a few of your other posts. Keep up the good work. I just added your RSS feed to my Google News Reader. Looking forward to reading more from you down the road!
Alex said
Your blog is interesting!
Keep up the good work!
John Bayne said
I would like to add factual weight to the pro-Christian side of the controversy concerning the continuation of the British monarchy, by stating that such moves against the monarchy cannot be orchestrated by Bible professing Christians, [without condemnation from Isaiah 8:20, “To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them, ” (remembering that the Authorized King James Version of 1611, is the only complete English translation that is 100% free of the corrupt gnostic texts orignating from Egypt, and that it only uses the Received Text that Erasmus successfully sought out during his lifetime, providing the world for the first time in nearly 1000 years,the complete and genuine ancient Hebrew text from the Old Testament and the ancient Greek for the New that was, for nearly 1000 years,preserved by the Waldensies, who were hunted during this time by the Roman Catholic Church, during which time frame around 1,000,000 Waldensies were martyred, keeping in mind that, in principle,Catholic Church can no more ever be at peace with supporters of “freedom of conscience”* than the Islamic religion, where the Islamic religion, constitutionally, is duty bound to exterminate all that are not of this religion whenever the opportunity allows and where the Catholic Church constitutionally views the right of individual conscience, as was put forward by Martin Luther in his most famous speech at the Diet **, for the reason that such a move transgresses the fifth commandment, by reason that, by the same principle, that a parent, has a divinely appointed*** right to the respect of, and authority over, as first in line representatives of God the Father, who is referred to in James 1:17 as “…the Father of lights in whom is no variableness neither shadow of turning”, “Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above and cometh down from the father of lights in whom is no variableness neither shadow of turning.”
*The argument used by those against the 1701 Act of Settlements prohibition against Catholics being allowed in positions of power, let alone assuming the throne of England or being married to a monarch, is the charge of “discrimination” which is no more valid than the charge of discrimination being laid against proponents and practitioners of behaviour and tastes that are declared worthy of death in the Scripture, such as homosexuality, incest, pedophilia and bestiality to name but a few. Furthermore, this neurolinguistic technique has already been successfullyb employed in countries such as New Zealand, still under the British crown, in causing that country to legalize homosexuality, abortion and prostitution. My letter is not so much to force a point but rather to expose the icked deception being practised on the average person who is far too naive in this area of education to realize the true import of minority groups promoting the legalization of behaviour that is most strongly condemned in the Bible, under the guise of “discrimination”.
When reduced to only two variables one can see easily the most fundamental cause of division and justified “discrimination”, if you will, and that is the “no quarter given no quarter expected nor asked for” controversy between those who choose to be ruled by inclination (to walk in the flesh) and those who choose to be ruled by principle ( to walk in the spirit) where the Scripture describes this controversy in the book of Galatians the following way, “Stand fast therefore in the liverty wherewith Christ hath made you free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. Galatians 5:1, “For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another. For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. But if ye bite and consume one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another. This I say then, Wakl in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusteth against the the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would. But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law. Now the works of teh flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, withchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.”
It is self evident that of the entire physical universe, all physical matter is accounted to belong to one of four kingoms made up of two worlds, where the kingdom of the lowest order, the mineral kingdom, as reperesented by the Periodic Table, is the lowest kingdom and is synonymous with the inorganic world, and where the other three kingdoms are, in ascending levels of order; the vegetable kingdom, the animal kingdom and the human kingdom.
From this we can derive four levels of ascending order within each kingdom in terms of the other kingdoms giving rise to 16 levels of existence in ascending order, wherein the top four constitute the human kingdom so that mineral humans could describe accurately, human beings with the heart of an adult and the mind of a child, vegetable humans, human beings with the heart of an adult and the mind of an adult, animal humans, human beings with the heart of a child and the mind of a child, and human humans, as human beings who have the mind of an mature human being and who have retained the guileless heart of a child. The first two are childish and the last two childlike.
It is obvious that the only acceptable level of existence here is those who have the guileless heart of a child, by looking after their heart in the pristine condition that it was in at birth, and yet they have developed the mind from an undeveloped state at birth to a highly organized and functional state as would describe someone heeding Christ’s admonition to “Be ye therefore wise as serpents and harmless as doves.”
So a true atheist is one who, regardless of their opinon as to the reality of the existence of God, are fully committed to living by inclination, or walking in the flesh, as in “If it feels good, do it,” as opposed to “being fully committed to living by principle (keeping the Ten Commandments) and walking in the Spirit, as in “Not by might, nor by power by by thy spirit saith the Lord.”
So an atheist is a foolish person as in the man who built his house upon the sand, as the Word of God clearly states, in Psalm 53:1, “The fool saith in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquitey: there is none that doeth good. God looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, that did seek God. Every one of them is gone back: they are altogether br\ecome filthy; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. Have the workers of iniquity ho knowledge? Who eat up my people as they eat bread: they have not called upon God.”
So it is such undesirable human beings who have strayed off the path of fulfilment of their potential, who are opposed to the existence of an infinite benevolent God Who has used all of His might to devise the very best possible future for all the human beings who will ever live upon this earth and who eliminate themselves from both the right to this opportunity for a life as qualitatively superior as eternal life implies quantity of life, by being both unreasonable and an offense to what is commonly known as a sense of decency. As is implied in the common realization of all civilized human beings that cannabilism is totally unnacceptable, considering that an atheistic government would be hard pressed to find fundamental condemnation of this practice were a subject to insist that they had the right to offer large sums of money to fellow human beings who were willing to donate their body parts that did not cause loss of their life for him to eat, on the grounds that if there was no God, and we were entirely descended from the animal kingdom, there is nothing to condemn cannibalism as a crime.
**The concept of individual conscience as being the Voice of God, (1 John 5:7, where the Father is the Will of God, the Word of God the Son of God, and the Voice of God, the Holy Spirit, where the concept of each member of the Godhead as an infinite Alpha and Omega, can be likened to three infinite axis where the latter imply an infinite cube when perpendicular to one another , so that just as a three dimensional cube is the expression of the ideal relationship between three infinite (linear) axis, so also the term God, is the espression of the ideal relationship between three infinite Alpha and Omegas, courtesy of Romans 1:20, which states that there is no excuse for not knowing even the Eternal Godhead because it is written in creation.
*** The term I used, “divinely appointed right” refers to the fifth commandment, “Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon th eland which the Lord thy God giveth thee.”
So the type of person that sees no point to the monarchy is the same type of person that sees no point to keeping the Ten Commandments which summed up is to firstly, according to the first four of the Ten Commandments, commands that we “Love the Lord our God, with all our hearts, souls, minds and strength, and to love our neighbour as ourselves. We have the best recorded examples of compliance to these commandments in the oracles of the Word of God, so that anyone against living in this way would more likely than not, be as dangerously wicked and antisocial and these selfless self sacrificing saints were righteous unto death, (100% of the 11 faithful apostles and the one who replaced Judas Isariot, whom the Lord never chose, faced death to the death except John who was fried in oil for 24 hours without any harm). Jim Jones who preyed on his followers sexually and had all of those not willing to commit suicide drink poison to die with him, is a good example of someone the opposite to the oracles of the Word of God.
So we can see how that no sooner was homosexuality decriminalized in New Zealand and they amost immediately instituted unscriptural legistaltion to force it on others, such as in the case of the doctor successfully sued in court for refusing to rent out a dwelling to a homosexual, when Biblically they should be stoned in the Old Testament and since Jesus paid the price for all sins including those worthy of death, imprisoned in the New Testament, so that they cannot commit crimes. This is the same principle by which a serial rapist forfeits his freedom to go to prison instead.
So if can be seen the justification in the 1701 Act of Settlement reserving the right to protect its freedom loving subjects from powers bent of robbing them of this, such powers in particular as the Catholic Church and the religion of Islam. Also God has not changed, according to Hebrews 13:8, “Jesus Chrsit, the same yesterday, today and tomorrow,” where He tells Joshua severely in Joshua 7:10-12 that if he does not destroy those covenant breakers from amongh Israel, that He will no longer be with them, so that crimes such as adultery, although no longer divinelly commissioned to destroy them, by virtue of the fact that Christ has literally paid the price for every human being that ever will live upon this earth, it is obvious that churches who refuse to disfellowship members in open sin, where according to 1 John 3:4, “Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth the law: for sin is the transgression of the law,” and 1 John 2:4, “He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments is a liar and the truth is not in him.”
So since James 2:10 declares that he who breaks one commandment breaks them all, in the following words, “For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is fuilty of all.”
So when Romans 7:1-3 declares, “Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth? For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from tghe law of her husband. So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adutleress, though she be married to another man,” can be applied to Mrs Wallace Simpson in the following words, “For Mrs Simpson, which hath an husband, is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth, but if her husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress” but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.”
These verses combined with the knowledge that it would be impossible for anyone marrying Mrs Simpson to be free of the charge of adultery if the remariage while her husband still lived accused Mrs Simpson of adultery. So would the constitution of England allow a person clearly condemned of adultery, clearly a sin worthy of death, even if Christ has paid the penalty for all sins, to reign as monarch knowing this. When the Bible declares that it is an abomination for the servant to rule the master, how much more abominable for the criminal worthy of death to rule the righteous. Ephraim, under the leadership of the divinely appointed Jeroboam, declared, “What portion have we in David? neither have we inheritance in the son of Jesse: to your tents, O Israel: now see to thine own house, David,” 1 Kings 12:16, in answer to King Rehoboam’s declaration to the delegation of the ten tribes, “My father made your yoke heavy, and i will add to your yoke: my father also chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scorpions.”
The Catholic Church cannot change its policies concerning allowing individual conscience any more than Beelzebub could be responsible for Christ’s benevolent miracle healing and sin forgiving mission, because as Christ put it,
A house divided against itself cannot stand.” Supressing liberty of conscience and enslaving free men is such a fundamental policy of the Catholic Church that it would lose its identity before it could trully repent of such anti social behaviour, not that it cannot pretent and fool the majority of a population of freedom loving people that it was not like that, but had changed with the times and now had the most benevolent and Godly intentions towards all men, especially Bible based Protestantism and its adherents.
Taking note of how the Catholics in high places in the American government have succeeded in drafting such antiScriptural anti hate laws and put them into the legislation, all with the intent to supress the liberty of individual conscience rather than to be remotely concerned with discrimination against law abiding citizens, and of how this was made very easy to impliment by taking advantage of the average persons lack of education in the area of jurisprudence, much like the judge in an Auckland court, who trying to justify the large number of incidences where a judge had allowed a person arrested on suspicion to be released before adequate time to find out if he was the suspected serial rapist, whereupon that person had reoffended, attempted to justify this by misapplying the rule rightly applied to situations of final sentancing for the serious offence of first degree murder, by applying the giving of the benefit of the doubt to the defendant, when it is patently obvious that any decent citizen would rather spend a week or two in jail while knowing their own innocence for sure, until properly cleared, rather than have a rule in place that would allow a true serial rapist to rape and possibly kill as a result of letting him go, when he was actually in custody and would have been discovered to be the serial rapist they were looking for had the already overworked understaffed policing department had reasonable or adequate time to make the necessary unquiries that would have led to the proper charges being laid and ensuring that no further incidents were possible from that particular offender in custody.
Keeping also in mind, the fact, demonstrated by the Morganic flavour of these anti hate laws that are incrasing the error that they owe their existence to, namely that the genuine rules against discrimination be extended to criminals, who are either committing high treason as the Catholics do, against the people, such as Bloody Mary did, between the sovreignty of her brother and her sister Queen Elizabeth I, such that a repeat of her persecution of Protestants could be repeated in England under the guise of tolerance of those who are bent on persecution of those who would attemtp to naively give them the kind of equality that would allow them to do this.
Typical of proponents of overturning the anti Catholic Act of Settlement of 1701, I believe that they are taking advantage of the average man in the street’s lack of knowledge so for this reason I will quote the very most sacred oath that our current monarch made at her coronation in 1952.
“I, Elizabeth, do solemnly and sincerely, in the presence of God, profess, testify, and declare that I do believe that in the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper there is not any transubstantiation of the elements of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, at or after the consecration thereof, byh any person whatsoever; and that teh invocation or adoration of the Virgin Mary or any other Saint, and the sacrifice of th emass, as they are now used in the Chruch of Rome, are superstitious, and idolatrous. And I do solemnly delare, that I do make this declaration, and every part thereof, in the plain and ordinary sense of the words read unto me, as they are commonly understood by English Protestants, without any evasion, equivocation or mental reservation, and without any dispensation already granted me for this purpose by the Pope or any other authority or person whatsoever, or without any hope of any such dispensaton form any person or authority whatsoever, or without thinking that I am or can be acquitted before God or man, or absolved of this declaration or any part thereof, although the Pope, or any other person or persons or power whatsoever, shall dispense with or annul the same, or declare that it was null and void from the beginning.”
My final questin which is an open question like all of the others to everyone who Providentailly reads this letter: “If our present sovereign is ever seen to cleary and unequivocally break this oath, does she forfeit all of the benefits from the transaction that required this oath as part of the price of sovereignty? and after considering what I have said in this letter, does it seem more likely or less likely that the first in line of succession has truly disqualified himself from his right of succession by marrying a divorced woman, especially if there is evidence of her having a procatholic influence, such that this person first in line to the throne could not make the above oath without perjuring himself, and just like Charles 1, was genuinely convicted of high treason, against the people of the realm, are procatholics and those bent on overthrowing the Act of Settlement of 1701, either directly or by modifying it to achieve the same result, that of depriving the people of the realm, in time, of their liberty of conscience to serve the living God rtahte than man, when in conflict?”
Regards
John Bayne