Written by Bob Lomas
[Read Part I here]
Parliament is or was made up of three balancing powers, The Crown, the Lords and the Commons. Not until all three powers were in agreement on a Bill could it become a lawful Act of Parliament. By 1914 the Monarch had deserted his coronation oath and his people and the influence of the people’s Crown had so been removed from the three balancing powers. This left the remaining two, the Lords and the Commons to battle it out or collude in order to maintain their newly acquired dictatorial powers over the people. Also to this end Parliament elected to maintain the Monarchy in the form of a charade with false displays of traditional pageantry to amuse and titillate the masses. It was of course a successful coup d’etat.
Parliament had assumed the people’s sovereignty for itself as expressed in the nonsense terms ‘parliamentary sovereignty’ and later ‘ parliamentary democracy’. George V was succeeded by Edward VIII who understood what was going on and used it to extricate himself from the charade which he successfully achieved. The next charade coronation brought in George VI who played his part by using his false position to create a front for Parliament in a time of war.
It seems likely that his daughter Elizabeth II was sensible to her true position when she simply stood back and watched an unlawful and treasonous Parliament surrender the people’s sovereignty to an unaccountable and unelected foreign political power, and then accepted citizenship of that power knowing that no one can be both monarch and citizen at the same time. The fact that the British Monarchy no longer existed was made clear when Elizabeth’s son Charles was allowed a civil wedding thus placing him in contravention of Article 7 of Canon Law thus rendering him ineligible for the office of Governor of the Church of England, and consequently the office of Monarch.
This seldom recognised or understood fact brings us to another aspect of influence in the great deceit and betrayal. Since the Reformation of the English Church in the 16th century the Protestant religion has been the catalyst of the English Constitution. The Christian principle aligned well with the pre-Christian word ‘fair’, a Saxon word the meaning of which is not to be found in any other language. The Christian Ten Commandments provided a guide for social standards that also upheld the meaning of the word ‘fair’.
In times when the majority of people believed in and feared the power of God by placing oneself under that power, such as when taking solemn oaths in the sight of God, a system of reliable accountability could be maintained. It was the responsibility of the Church to nurture and maintain that belief. As the Monarch was the official Governor of the Anglican Church, when the Monarchy became a meaningless charade and political tool the Church was left to govern itself and, like the leaderless nation, lost all direction and binding principle. Thus the Churches attraction as a social point of reference withered alongside the general evaporating belief in all things spiritual, and with it the principle and fear that held people to account for their actions and non actions.
It could be argued that many of these changes would eventually have taken place over time by natural progression of social evolution but what we have seen has been anything but that. We have seen desertion of principle and accountability at the very top of our social and political structure. We have seen blatant and criminal betrayal by those in whom we placed our trust. We have seen the abolition of the monarchy and the criminal takeover of our Parliament. We have seen the surrender of our lawful sovereignty in acts of national capitulation to a foreign power.
We have witnessed in disbelief and incredulity the destruction of the nation state. Our country is now a cosmopolitan collection of people from far and wide with many diverse temperaments, traits, religious and political beliefs, to the detriment of any hope of social unity. Our towns and cities accommodate ghettos of foreign peoples who have no intention of assimilating and our dictatorial professional political class continually seek to destroy our green and pleasant countryside to make way for more dwellings and their infrastructure to accommodate ever more foreign immigrants in the cause of planned genetic genocide and base monetary gain. The indigenous British people now find themselves as a displaced people in their own land and with no obvious signs or hope of remedy or redress.
Sometimes when the future looks uncertain and challenging answers can be found by addressing the past. We the British are the sum of our history and our history as a nation goes back into the mists of time. Our earliest recorded ancestors were the Celtic people who in their tribes populated most of mainland Europe. The Celtic tribes that populated these islands were here when the Romans came and they were still here after the Romans had departed. Soon they were joined by Nordic invaders, the Danes, Angles and Saxons all of whom had their origins in Celtic territories, and although their religions varied their political structures had much in common. Most had a traditional policy of electing their leaders and sacking them if things went wrong thus upholding the principle that the people held the supreme power and their elected leaders, kings, chiefs or whatever title they used, led only by the consent of the people. This was later modified when Christianity, a North African religion, was introduced and for reasons of political and financial advantage the people were persuaded that their elected leader was also chosen by the Christian God and so the church gained control over the people’s leaders.
[Concluded with Part III, to be published tomorrow]
I think any election to Parliament must be from local councils; all local councillors with a minimum 8 years’ experience in service to their communities, can put themselves forward for the vote to be part of our government. Their local knowledge and experience will be invaluable in the government for the whole country. That will stop every Tom, Dick and Harry with no experience of hard work or caring for society to get voted into the more important jobs of making decisions for the whole country. Today’s nomination for candidates are without minimum qualifications for any administrative work or even knowledge of allegiance to the Nation; their loyalty is simply to their political party, with no affiliation to governing in any shape or form. Many of today’s MPs are too young to appreciate where their loyalty should lie and lack patriotism to Great Britain’s sovereignty; therefore they fight for their own political corner instead of against the common enemy outside; hence they are prepared to over-ride the national majority vote to regain our sovereignty after 45 years. An MP’s pay and perks is a draw and should not be awarded to anyone without 8 – 10 years’ experience in local councils.
Disband the House of Lords ,and make a truly democratic second house , select 500 members , with a random number generator , of people over the age of 35, who have lived in the country since birth , using their National Insurance number, make it a 5 year deal and pay a proper rate for the job. If an individual refuses the task , simply
remove them from the list.
Please please please Not everything has to be democratic. We need a body which can stop fools from trying to get what they cannot have. Which is why we’ve got what we have now. How many leaders since the war have done unbelievably silly things. For any number of silly reasons. And NOBODY stopped them. A bunch of kids who have never done anything except buy votes,and cling limpet like to power at allcosts.
A place for the GREAT, the GOOD, or at least the BETTER, the WISER, the CLEVERER or at least the LUCKIER..Wealthier, peculiar. BUT NOT VOTEDFOR.
To say NO..!. RETHINK.
I feel that you and I Bob, would be in general agreement on this matter, probably culminating with Charles becoming King, and our Monarchy only being fit for a tourist attraction ! ….. I had my rant upon this to your Part One !
I don’t know, but I suspect that I may be in a minority as a believer in God ! – The history and spiritual standing of the RC Church at the time of Luther and Henry Vlll, was more political than spiritual. – Luther delivered the unwelcomed truth to the Pope, and Henry took the property and wealth of the Church domestically, for entirely personal reasons. – Thus started a Protestant Church with our Monarch as the defending head of it. – Henry’s son, Edward Vl continued Henry’s ideas, but the reign of Mary enforced RC interests, which sowed the seeds for the early Puritans. – Elizabeth l, gave acceptance to both belief systems.
King Charles l, eventually lost his head after a civil war by over riding Parliament, which is why I am probably more ‘careful’ about Crown power than you are Bob, as this must never happen again. – I do however take your point about Governance by Commons, Lords and Crown, and I need to have more thought upon this, with the view of the possibility of the next Monarch !
I’d rather have a monarchy than a presidency any day of the week.
What really needs reformed is the House of Lords, with an end to political has-beens being given a place there, & thus perpetuating the two party state.
I suggest the following:
The HoL become an elected body.
Each constituency elects one member, as for MPs.
The election takes place two years after a General Election.
The method; First Alternative Vote.
ALL candidates must have been working in a field outside of politics & government for a minimum of 15 years (no; I do NOT consider youthful zeal in any way appropriate for those given oversight over legislation).
Party affiliation should NOT be on the ballot paper, as it’s expertise & knowledge which should be the deciding factor.
I suggest those elected serve no more than two terms, or five years, whichever is the greater.
Mike, I think it is not so much the House of Lords that needs reforming as the method by which membership is decided.
But as to an elected second chamber, answer me this: if the members of one house of Parliament chosen by election is insufficient for good governance what makes you think a second chamber, also chosen by election, will be any better?
Good point Alan. Good governance may best be achieved by getting rid of most it.
The currently UN elected chamber is clearly unfit for purpose.
Note the conditions I’ve suggested regarding who & how to elect members of a HoL. It would undeniably be more, rather than less representative & far more likely to reach decisions based on the facts, rather than ponts scoring or a political agenda.
I know this is going to go down like a lead balloon but I think the first thing we need to do is repeal the act that chucked out or blocked hereditary peers thereby throwing out all the fake Lords. To me it made sense to have landed gentry, people with something to lose, acting as a brake on some of the grifters who manage to fool the electorate into putting them into parliament and as for letting aforementioned grifters select ‘Lords’? Lordy!
Like it or not history seems to suggest that although what we had before the Lords were ‘modernised’ may not have been perfect but it worked a heap lot better than what we have now which is downright dangerous.
Works for me. Politically difficult though – one of the many bear traps Bliar and Bruin left behind to act as real WMDs to our culture and constitution. I’d also regrettably get rid of the Lord Bishops as it is only a matter of time before Muslim clerics and all the rest demand a “religious” voice in the Lords too.
That sounds right to me Michael Keal. I am only just discovering How much damage Blair did to this country. It makes sense to me to have Landed Gentry in the second chamber. You put it better than I could.
So much of what has been done under fancy names like modern and progress is actually simply ENVY.
Who decides the names on the ballot paper? This is how our democracy has been eroded over the past 4 decades, by only allowing (mostly) pro-EU people to be candidates. Why cannot constituencies choose their own candidates, and vet all of them prior to acceptance?
With the creation of the Bill of Rights 1689 the presumption of reign by divine right was ended and the monarch become that of official Governor of the nation state, Head of the Executive and Governor of the Church of England, a political office being in essence a presidency. The English settlers of America upheld this principal but in the UK self serving Parliaments and the church has always endeavoured to disguise and hide this constitutional fact. It must not be overlooked that the coronation is an election of the monarch.
“Christianity, a North African religion”
?????????????
Blatantly wrong. Christianity was a religion of the Middle East that was eventually adopted by the Roman Empire, thereby bringing about its introduction into Europe.
Both wrong. Romanism is not Christian, hence such works as “The Two Babylons – or Papal Worship proved to be the Worship of Nimrod and his Wife” – Rev. Alexander Hislop (written long before Christianity in the West was subverted and descended into dilute ecumenical ‘mush’)
And Islam was created by Rome to destroy the Christianity which threatened her and was outside of her control – this information was revealed by Cardinal Bea to ex Jesuit priest Alberto Rivera. Look up the Walter Veith ‘Total Onslaught’ presentation: ‘The Islamic Connection’
The human condition being what it is there can be little doubt that the Christian religion was imposed on the Celtic people of northern Europe more for political expediency than spiritual unification just as the Vatican remains a political entity in its own right.
Religion, religion, religion………why not start thinking sensibly?
Of course, keep faery stories, they sometimes stimulate the brain…….but let’s stop listening to the shysters, con-merchants and second-rate magicians and snake-oil-salesmen, most of whom wear dresses of comedic attire…..we’re grown-ups, aren’t we?????
Dave Smith: Even if Rome corrupted Christianity for its own purposes, that doesn’t negate the fact that Christianity (whether a faked or genuine version) was introduced into europe via the Roman Empire.
On another matter, for some reason I never receive notification of responses and new posts, even though I tick the appropriate box.
in unguarded moments the Duke of Edinburgh often referred to The House of Windsor as ‘the firm’. Not far off the mark!
https://www.ft.com/content/e31c28ac-a341-11e0-8d6d-00144feabdc0