End the Crown or Getting rid of the Royal Family

[Glass]

We have an historic opportunity to Dump the Crown! A Unique chance to be RID of the British Monarchy and so much more. In fact everything that exists because of the Crown could be swept away.


CHOGM (http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=chogm%202011&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCUQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.chogm2011.org%2F&ei=UOK4TqbUBKyziQfKxJydBw&usg=AFQjCNGpWs5hTxM6z-jL5AJ2EDL_Wl8YCw&cad=rja) was held on the 27th to 30th of November 2011 in Perth, Western Australia. In the lead up to and during this Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting there were some interesting things being discussed. One of the more interesting things, apart from the unlawful declaration of the intention to wield military might against any dissenter nation in the Commonwealth, was the discussion surround changes needed to the Succession system for the British Monarchy (http://gold-silver.us/forum/Nothing%20exceeds%20like%20the%20succession).

There was a request made during the GHOGM that changes be made to appropriate Statutes so that an Heir to the throne could come from a female in the descendancy ahead of any younger male descendants. This is where a Queen would be crowned even if a there is a male heir if the male heir is younger than the female heir. This request was made as urgent by The Queen.

The most glaring question about this WHY? Why do they need to make this change? With a little more information it is possible to see that there may not actually be any way a male heir from the current Queen could reign as King of England, Scotland and Ireland.

So lets have a look at some history to set the scene for the current situation.

In the 1640's, Oliver Cromwell lead a revolution in England. He imprisoned the King and took over the rule of England, Scotland and Ireland. Take note that Wales is not mentioned here, only England, Scotland and Ireland. This is very important. For reasons I am not sure of Wales appears to be the true seat of the Crown. If it is the true seat of the Crown why is it not recorded that King James II King of England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland. Wales is not in the list.

This is a list of many of the styles of the Sovereigns going back in time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Style_of_the_British_sovereign#Styles_of_English_a nd_Scottish_sovereigns
There is no mention of Wales in the recorded styles.

It is because King James II could not be the King of Wales and this applies to every Crown since his reign? That maybe it. But it could be something altogether different. What if in the time since the last King died, King George ( Elizabeths' Father ), another King has ascended to the throne? I think this is the most likely answer.

If there is already a King, then this would mean that the Windsor family (the current royal family, real name Sax-Coburg) could not provide a King for there is no chance of ascendency for a Prince to become the King because there already is a King. It would still be possible for there to be a new Queen from the Windsor family but there is one obstacle to the new Queen coming from the Windsor family (Sax-Coburg). All of the potential candidates are Catholic and according to the employment contract for the crown, no catholic can rule the British Empire.

So it seems the Queen has no Kings and as it stands at the moment she has no Queens either. She has Princes and Princesses who cannot become Kings or Queens.

The Royal Family Employment Contract.
The 1600's proved to be a pivotal time in history. There was a great deal of turmoil and the results of which changed the face of the Law and brought an end the Royal line for some time.

Oliver Cromwell lead the English revolution and captured the King. Cromwells’ financial backers wanted the King dead in order to end the royal line and the Divine power of Kings. Even though the King was in custody there was no lawful justification to kill the King. Cromwell conspired to allow the King to escape custody therefore causing the King to commit a crime. The King was duly executed and his heir Charles II was forced into exile.

Cromwell took charge, establishing the Republic of England and endured several civil wars over the next few years. When Cromwell died, Charles II was installed as King of Scotland and Ireland and ruled as such until his death. This is known as the restoration. He was unable to secure the Crown of England until 1660.

The Wiki for Charles and Charles II contains some good information from the era and offers information that seems to corroborate that those who have held the Crown since 1701 are public servants and nothing more.

Wiki for Charles II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_II_of_England)

After Charles II came King James II (brother of Charles II). King James ruled as monarch until 1701. James was confirmed as the Lord High Admiral after the restoration. This is a title that has been vested in the Sovereign since that time until recently (1694 - 2011). This is an important event to note because it has substantial impact on the way in which the Law has developed and been implemented since that time. The Lord High Admiral has Authority on the Sea.

The reign of King James II is equally important because it established several key elements which affect the way in which the Law is applied in all commonwealth countries and in the US as well.

Wiki for James II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_II_of_England)


While there is a Lord High Admiral (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admiralty) which deals with the Royal Navy, there is also a Lord High Constable.

The Lord High Admiral is the Authority of the Kingdom of England and the United Kingdom which replaced it. It deals with the Navy and any issues of Admiralty.
The Lord High Constable is the Authority of "some thing" to do with the land and the upholding of the Law of the Land. What could that "some thing" of Authority be?


1701 Settlement Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_Settlement_1701)
In 1701 the UK parliament adopted a new law called the 1701 Settlement Act. This law was and still is the employment contract for the Royal Family. This law establishes that the Royal Family are public servants and not divine right rulers. The divine right rulers apparently ceased to exist with the execution of King Charles I and the subsequent death of his son Charles II when the family was restored to the Crown after the Cromwell lead civil war period.

The 1701 Settlement Act lays out the employment contract for the Sax Coburg family to be the Royal Family Windsor. The Act determines that if the Royal line of succession for the Crown is broken as described in the Bill or Rights (UK) then the Crown would go to Sophia of Hamburg who was Protestant. The Act further stipulates the Crowns power, outlines the rules for succession to the role and it also applies religious criteria for any succession. No successor can be Catholic.

James II converted to Catholicism in 1668 and his heirs were catholic. By 1688 James had 2 protestant daughters and a new born catholic son. The 1701 Settlement Act prohibited any heir to the throne from being Catholic. As a result of this James had no heirs to the Throne and an alternative Royal family had to be found.

Let's move forward to the current time. The 1701 Settlement Act is still in force and it's conditions are unchanged. At this time, the Queen has a Husband known as a Consort Prince, 2 Sons, 2 Grandsons and some Granddaughters.

If the Queen has 2 sons then it would be reasonable to assume that these would be her heirs yet the Queen has requested a change to the 1701 Settlement Act so that a female can take the Crown ahead of any male or that Catholics be allowed to again hold the Crown of England, Scotland and Ireland.

So again the question is why is that the case and what does it mean?

For people who want to get out from under the rule of this Royal Family this could be a very important event.

What would happen if these changes were not made to the 1701 Settlement Act? What would it mean for the Royal lineage? Does the Queen have an viable Heir if nothing in the Act changes? I would say no she does not have a viable heir because:


She only has potential Kings as Heirs but she cannot be succeeded by a King because a King already has the Crown.
She has potential Queens as Heirs but the candidates are Catholic and cannot be installed on the Throne.


As a result the 1701 Settlement Act must be changed to allow succession by a female catholic ahead of a male heir.

The Queen has no Kings or Queens
As has been mentioned several times, the Queen has no viable male Heirs because they would need to be King and there is already a King holding the Crown.

How can this be? The answer lies in the fact that there is a King and this King is the King of Wales. It was recently discovered that there is a true Heir to the Royal throne going back in lineage to the time of King James II. This King public proclaimed their ascendency to the Crown and it is this act that has caused the current situation. That King is also the undisputed Lord High Constable. He has authority on the Land.

Because there is a King holding the Crown, the descendants of Elizabeth Sax-Coburg Windsor cannot ascend to the position of King. At best the Queen could be succeeded by a Queen, however the 1701 Settlement Act prohibits a catholic from becoming King or Queen. The current King is a Mr Foley and he resides in Australia. He has no male children, however he does have male Grandchildren ensuring that he has a line of succession to the Crown.

He also has the opposite problem that the Queen has in that he cannot have a heir become Queen because a Queen already holds the Crown.

Changing the 1701 Settlement Act
What would happen if the 1701 Settlement Act was changed. The Queen could have a female catholic Heir. As keeper of the Faith this would be a serious affront to the Anglican church and most British subjects.

What would happen if the 1701 Settlement Act was NOT changed? The Queen would not have ANY heirs to the throne and as a result that line would end with Elizabeth.

If this were the case then the King would have an opportunity to have an heir succeed to the Queens Crown because the Crown would be vacant.

What does this Mean?
It means that there is a possibility that the subjects of the Sax-Coburg Windsor Royal Family could shrug off the yoke of the Royal Family and every thing that hangs off of them. As a result of this, this could be one of the most pivotal times in history since the reigns of Charles I through James II.

The current Royal family is intricately tied into many of the corporations that masquerade as governments. They provide the authority for the Governments in all commonwealth countries and to a lesser extent the US. They are the Lord High Admiral and as such all of their Authority derives from this role and is operational only on the Sea. They have no Authority on the Land because the King is Lord High Constable and has authority on the land.

The Admiralty is how all of the Commonwealth Laws operate as well as those of the US. They operate in Admiralty for commerce purposes, insurance, salvage etc. Every subject (citizen of the commonwealth) operates in Admiralty whether they realise it or not. The laws also operate in Admiralty for punishment or criminal purposes as well. Most courts are summary judgment courts. If someone was in the Army, they would be disciplined by the Army according to those rules and those rules a summary judgment. There is no real hearing given to any evidence. If a charge is brought it is brought by an Officer of the Government and as such is undisputable. Once charged only conviction can follow. Summary Judgement.

In the navy the same thing applies. As the current Sovereign is Lord High Admiral their power only extends over water. This leads to another discussion about how people on the land can be affected by an authority over the sea. It happens by sleight of hand and nothing more. If you look to your countries laws try and find a law that defines what your country is. Perhaps it's boundaries or borders are described. Invariably most countries under Admiralty law are defined as being rivers and water ways, some of which extend in land. For example Australia is defined as including the Cocos and Keeling Islands. In law the term "Includes" means anything which is not hereafter listed is not included. So the Commonwealth of Australia is comprised soley of the Cocos and Keeling Islands not the great land mass that most people know as Australia.

The Queen rules by extending the concepts of the Sea inland. By claiming water ways and more recently claiming underground water flows in direct breach of the common law. Establishing townSHIPS in land. Extending roads inland from ports. Allowing Traffic to move along those roads. Traffic is the movement of passengers or cargo for a fee. Cargo is transported via sea. A road is just an extension. Metaphorically it is an in land waterway.

The Bank of England is a private bank that gets it's Authority from the Sax-Coburg Windsor Crown. The legal system derives all of its power from the Crown. It prosecutes in the name of the Crown. There are many enterprises that operate with the Royal prerogative that cause great harm to the people. Most current Governments are corrupt and are stealing the wealth of the people while causing them great physical harm at the same time.

The opportunity to be rid of this whole structure exists today. It exists now and it is possible if people can resist changes to the 1701 Settlement Act (UK) and any other relevant legislation in each of the commonwealth countries and the states in those countries.

If anyone one of the Commonwealth countries or states resist the changes required then the current reign will come to an end. There will be no heirs from the Sax Coburg Windsor line. After the death of Elizabeth the crown could become whole again.

[JohnQPublic]

Occupy Buckingham Palace (OBP)!

[Horn]

Occupy Buckingham Palace (OBP)!

As much as I would like to see her ousted for treachery of strange partnerships against her subjects, and those of the lowlier Commonwealth's inhabitants.

Resistance to her throne's rule is as futile as wrestling with ones own shadow.

[sirgonzo420]

... as wrestling with ones own shadow.

If one is fully illuminated, one has no shadow.

[palani]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/05/cost-of-the-queen-less-th_n_635478.html

Cost Of The Queen? Less Than $1 Per Person A Year


LONDON — Like millions of her subjects, Queen Elizabeth II is going to have to make do and mend – cutting spending and putting off palace repairs as royal finances are squeezed by Britain's budget crisis.

Accounts published Monday by Buckingham Palace reveal the total public cost of supporting the monarchy was 38.2 million pounds ($57.8 million) in the year to March 31, the equivalent of 62 pence (94 cents) per person. The total is more than 3 million pounds less than in 2008-2009.

Britain's public sector is facing cuts as the government tries to eliminate a record deficit, and Alan Reid, Keeper of the Privy Purse, said the royal household "is acutely aware of the difficult economic climate" and will be cutting costs and putting off essential maintenance.

The 84-year-old queen receives 7.9 million pounds ($12.3 million) of public money each year to pay for staff and other costs, an amount that has not risen in 20 years. The accounts show also drew an extra 6.5 million pounds ($9.8 million) from a reserve fund built up over the years by saving portions of her allocated budget.

If the queen continues to use money from her reserve at the current rate, the fund will run out by 2012 – the year she celebrates her 60th year on the throne.

She had been expected to ask for an increase in basic funding this year, but the government – which is bringing in deep cuts to welfare payments and spending programs – imposed a freeze until at least next year.

See there? People don't pay for the royal services. Persons do. A person is 1)a word, 2)an action or 3)representation.

Number 3) should be the one of interest. Want to get rid of your person? Stop being represented.

[Horn]

The 84-year-old queen receives 7.9 million pounds ($12.3 million) of public money each year to pay for staff and other costs, an amount that has not risen in 20 years..

Explains the wantonness of strange partnerships, and application to Parliamentary men for salvation from God.

A heretic.

[Glass]

Aussie Mike the true King of England
September 11, 2005
The man named by historians as the rightful heir to the English throne has a republican's disdain for the big job. Matthew Benns enjoyed tea with the reluctant monarch.

BUCKINGHAM Palace would be run differently if Australian rice farmer Michael Hastings successfully pursued his claim to the English throne. "Well, I'd put a keg on for the palace garden parties and some party pies instead of cucumber sandwiches for a start," he says.

"And I'm thinking of sending Lizzie a bill for 500 years of back rent on the palace, too."

It has been more than 18 months since a team of British historians led by Tony Robinson — Baldrick in the Blackadder TV series — turned up on the doorstep of his modest weatherboard home in the southern NSW town of Jerilderie and told the 63-year-old widower he was the real King of England.

Mr Robinson and the team from the BBC, including scholar and historian Michael Jones, were making a program called Britain's Real Monarch.Dr Jones had discovered strong proof that the 15th-century English monarch Edward IV was illegitimate, thus throwing into question the legitimacy of all the kings and queens who followed.

It appeared that the royal line should have extended not through Edward, but through his brother George, Duke of Clarence, and his heirs.

"They arrived here and filmed my surprise as they put the family tree down on the table," recalls Mr Hastings.

Dr Jones told him he believed Edward IV was the illegitimate son of an archer. "His parents were 200 miles apart at the time he was supposed to have been conceived," says Mr Hastings. "The crown should have gone to Edward's brother George, Duke of Clarence, which is our line of the family."

The lie was perpetuated for more than 500 years and Mr Hastings, descended from a Catholic Plantagenet on the losing side of the civil wars of the 15th century, has been denied his throne.

"Who would bloody well want it, anyway?" asks the man who should be known as King Mike I.

"I feel sorry for poor old Liz. I think she has a very hard life because it is so regimented. I do what I want, but if Liz wants to sit in and watch Fawlty Towers on TV, she can't."

The revelation has changed some things for Mr Hastings. He has received a proposal of marriage. "Some mad tart down in Melbourne wrote to me and wanted to marry me," said the king, who has received thousands of letters since the ABC screened the documentary in May 2004. "I haven't replied to one."

The revelations crystallised Mr Hastings' thoughts on his adopted country and he is now a staunch republican.

The publicity also generated a personal call from the NSW Minister for Citizenship, Gary Hardgrave. "He called and asked if I would be interested in taking out citizenship. It was really pure laziness, I just hadn't got round to filling out the damn forms.

"I consider myself an Aussie, I cheered for Australia during the Ashes and even bet a slab on it with my brother-in-law in England."

Mr Hastings is also the 14th Earl of Loudoun and has passed on to his daughters a castle, manor house and gatekeeper's lodge at the family's Leicestershire seat of Ashby-de-la-Zouch.

Donnington Hall in Leicestershire and Loudoun Castle in Scotland have been sold off to pay death duties. "I take my title very seriously indeed, but the thing about being the King is a bit of a joke."

In Jerilderie, his old maroon Falcon attracts plenty of waves from his neighbours, but that has more to do with his roles on the Shire Council, Historical Society and Football Club than his lofty title.

At the Jerilderie Motor Inn, owner Bruce Crittenden insists that the 1000-strong population has been unaffected by the discovery of blue blood in their midst. "We just call him 'Kingsy' if we see him in the street," says Mr Crittenden with a laugh.

A triple-heart bypass operation earlier this year gave Mr Hastings time to reflect on the events of his life.

After attending the elite Ampleforth school with Andrew Parker Bowles, the first husband of Prince Charles' wife, Camilla, ("a bloody nice bloke, by the way") Mr Hastings headed to Australia in 1960. "Me and my mate started selling Encyclopedia Britannicas in Bondi, but it was so hot carrying the bloody things around that we started going in the pubs, " he recalls. "We got so drunk that we couldn't remember which one we left them in."

Instead, he headed out bush to a life as a jackaroo. He met wife, Noelene, by chatting her up as she operated the switchboard on the local telephone exchange. Eventually they settled in Jerilderie, 60 kilometres north of the Victorian border.

The couple had five children and shared no inclination to return to England.

In 2002, Mr Hastings had his annus horribilis, with the death of Noelene from breast cancer, as well as the deaths of his mother and stepfather. "I went back with my daughters and used my Earl title. It is the best way to get attention in the old country."

But the true King of England found he did not like the class system and was glad to return home to his job with Rice Research Australia.

"I am a republican. I think we have progressed long enough and far enough to stand on our own two feet.

"Now that might be a job I could do — "I could volunteer to be Australia's first head of state."

Article link @ the Age (http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/aussie-mike-the-true-king-of-england/2005/09/10/1125772732666.html)

[Awoke]

If one is fully illuminated, one has no shadow.


Mason.

[sirgonzo420]

Mason.


Lol.

[Bigjon]

I used to believe what the Original Post says, then I came across different information that ways something quite different about "the Crown".
This book says that "The Crown" is "The City of London".
It is seperate and independent from England and not subject to any taxes.

http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/empire.htm

THE EMPIRE OF "THE CITY"
(An excerpt from the book by E.C. Knuth)


"The City" is an international financial oligarchy and is perhaps the most arbitrary and absolute form of government in the world. This international financial oligarchy uses the allegoric "Crown" as its symbol of power and has its headquarters in the ancient City of London, an area of 677 acres; which strangely in all the vast expanse of the 443,455 acres of Metropolitan London alone is not under the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Police, but has its own private force of about 2,000 men, while its night population is under 9,000.

This tiny area of a little over one square mile has in it the giant Bank of England, a privately owned institution; which as is further elaborated hereinafter is not subject to regulation by the British Parliament, and is in effect a sovereign world power. Within the City are located also the Stock Exchange and many institutions of world-wide scope. The City carries on its business of local government with a fanciful display of pompous medieval ceremony and with its officers attired in grotesque ancient costumes. Its voting power is vested in secret guilds with names of long extinct crafts such as the Mercers, Grocers, Fishmongers, Skinners, Vintners, etc. All this trivial pomp and absurdity and horse-play seems to serve very well to blind the eyes of the public to the big things going on behind the scenes; for the late Vincent Cartwright Vickers, once Deputy-Lieutenant of this City, a director of the great British armament firm of Vickers, Ltd., and a director of the Bank of England from 1910 to 1919, in his "Economic Tribulation" published 1940, lays the wars of the world on the door-step of the City.

That the British people and the British Parliament have little to say in the foreign affairs of the British Empire, and that the people of the British Empire must fight when International Finance and the City blow the trumpet, appears from the paean of praise of America by Andrew Carnegie, "Triumphant Democracy," published in 1886 by that American super-industrialist and British newspaper publisher, in the following words: "My American readers may not be aware of the fact that, while in Britain an act of Parliament is necessary before works for a supply of water or a mile of railway can be constructed, six or seven men can plunge the nation into war, or, what is perhaps equally disastrous, commit it to entangling alliances without consulting Parliament at all. This is the most pernicious, palpable effect flowing from the monarchial theory, for these men do this in 'the king's Name,' who is in theory still a real monarch, although in reality only a convenient puppet, to be used by the cabinet at pleasure to suit their own needs."

Edwin J. Clapp, Professor of Economics at New York University, in his "Economic Aspects Of The War" published in 1915, developed the utterly boundless authority assumed by the "Crown" in its commands to the nations of the world through its "Order-in-Council," used without restraint and without reference to existing usage or so-called International law, by making new International Law to fit any situation, as required.
The Balance of Power is a creation of this financial oligarchy and its purposes are as follows:

(1) To divide the nations of Europe into two antagonistic camps of nearly equal military weight, so as to retain for Britain itself the power to sway a decision either way.

(2) To make the leading and potentially most dangerous military power the particular prey of British suppression and to have the second strongest power on the other side. To subsidize the "Most Favored Nations" with financial investments, and to permit them to acquire political advantages under the beneficent protection of the Sea-Power, to the disadvantage and at the expense of the nations being suppressed.

(3) To subject the continent of Europe to the "Policy of Encirclement" so as to keep the nations of the continent in poverty and ineffectiveness, and thereby prevent the growth of sufficient commercial expansion and wealth to create a rival sea-power.

(4) To retain that complete control and hegemony over all the seas of the world, which was acquired by defeating the allied fleets of its only real rivals, France and Spain, in 1805; and which is artfully and subtly called "The Freedom of the Seas."

(5) To shift this Balance of Power as required so as to be able to strike down friend or foe in the rapidly shifting scene of world power politics, in that inexorable ideology that demands that everything and anything must be sacrificed where the future welfare and expansion to the eventual destiny of the Empire are affected; that eventual destiny outlined by its proponents as the eventual control of All the lands, and All the peoples, of All the world.

The ideology of the British Empire has been outlined in the past by various British statesmen and specifically by Mr. Disraeli (Lord Beaconsfield). The modern version which has been broadened to include the United States as a principal in the British Empire was outlined by Cecil Rhodes about 1895 as follows: "Establish a secret society in order to have the whole continent of South America, the Holy Land, the Valley of the Euphrates, the islands of Cyprus and Candia, the islands of the Pacific not heretofore possessed by Great Britain, the Malay Archipelago, the seaboard of China and Japan and, finally, the United States. In the end Great Britain is to establish a power so overwhelming that wars must cease and the Millenium be realized."

The secret societies of the above plan apparently came to life immediately after the death of Mr. Rhodes in the Pilgrims of Great Britain, often used by British statesmen in recent years as a public sounding board; and the Pilgrims of the United States, the latter founded in New York City on January 13, 1903, and listed in directories of secret societies with no indication or purpose. Mr. Rhodes left a fortune of about $150,000,000.00 to the Rhodes Foundation, apparently largely directed towards the eventual intent of his ideology. One admitted purpose was "in creating in American students an attachment to the country from which they originally sprang . . ." It appears that organizations such as "Union Now," subversive to the liberty and the Constitution of the United States of America, have a large sprinkling of Rhodes scholars among their staff.

The Pilgrims were founded in London July 24, 1902, four months after the death of Cecil Rhodes who had outlined an ideology of a secret society to work towards eventual British rule of all the world, and who had made particular provisions in his will designed to bring the United States among the countries "possessed by Great Britain."

Sir Harry Brittain (high-ranking member of the Pilgrims) records that he was requested to come to New York in 1915 by the Chairman of the American Pilgrims "in order to give him a hand" in welcoming Lord Reading (Rufus Isaacs). The dinner in honor of Lord Reading took place at Sherry's on October 1st, and was attended by 400 representative men prominent in the banking, commercial and political life of the United States.

The magic number of 400, once the symbol of reigning wealth and privilege, appears here in a new role. Men of millions here sway the destiny, the life or death of their fellow citizens, with an organization which is subversive to the spirit and the letter of the Constitution of the United States, an organization of which not one in one thousand of their fellow citizens has ever heard. The purpose of these men is completely interwoven with the dependence of their own invariably great fortunes on the operations of "The City," citadel of International Finance. Not only do these men collectively exert a planned influence of immense weight in utter secrecy, but they operate with the support of the immense funds provided by Cecil Rhodes and Andrew Carnegie.

The late Robert M. LaFollette, Sr., in the course of a speech in the United States Senate in March, 1908, asserted that fewer than one hundred men control the great business interests of the country. His statement brought forth a nation-wide storm of denunciation and ridicule, and even today any similar statement is invariably derided as "crackpot." Nevertheless, Senator LaFollette conclusively demonstrated a few days later from the Directory of Directors that through interlocking directorates actually less than one dozen men controlled the business of the country, that in the last analysis the houses of Rockefeller and Morgan were the real business kings of America. empire.htm

[palani]

"I am a republican. I think we have progressed long enough and far enough to stand on our own two feet.

"Now that might be a job I could do — "I could volunteer to be Australia's first head of state."

One aspect of a republic is that, should a job need doing, anyone can step in and perform that job. Try to find a vacant office and take up residence.

[Cebu_4_2]

Watch "the ring of power".

[Horn]

May have trouble enlisting support from your own military, Glass.

They'll see a two front war if the Crown's approached.

Foreign Policy: The Buildup Down Under



U.S. President Barack Obama's just-concluded trip to Australia proved far more than a chance to swap notes with an embattled prime minister on antipodean vernacular or the frustrations of democracy, although he did learn that Australian political discourse involves a great deal of "ear-bashing."
The visit was historic on two counts.


It marked a tangibly strengthened alliance, with announcements of much-enhanced access for U.S. forces in Australia's north: a first step toward possible basing arrangements on the territory of an ally that for 60 years has hosted only visits, exercises, and intelligence facilities.


http://www.npr.org/2011/11/23/142697273/foreign-policy-the-buildup-down-under

[Glass]

One aspect of a republic is that, should a job need doing, anyone can step in and perform that job. Try to find a vacant office and take up residence.

I was thinking along these lines as well. If I could get Mr Hastings to appoint me Lord High Constable, that would be good.

[Glass]

Bigjon, even though there are two "crowns" and one is a corporation, that corporation uses the Authority of the Crown to do many things including the operation of all governments and courts. If they lost that "authority" they would have to do something else. Sure they could think something up but I think it would be much more time consuming, costly and difficult than what they are currently proposing, which is to change the laws to modify and extend that Authority.

I think we have been handed an opportunity to put a big spanner in their works and it's been presented on a silver platter.

[palani]

I was thinking along these lines as well. If I could get Mr Hastings to appoint me Lord High Constable, that would be good.

Therein lies your main disability.

Read up on the Emperor of North America. Emperor Norton saw fit to consult nobody prior to taking this office.

http://www.sfhistoryencyclopedia.com/articles/n/nortonJoshua.html

[Bigjon]

Bigjon, even though there are two "crowns" and one is a corporation, that corporation uses the Authority of the Crown to do many things including the operation of all governments and courts. If they lost that "authority" they would have to do something else. Sure they could think something up but I think it would be much more time consuming, costly and difficult than what they are currently proposing, which is to change the laws to modify and extend that Authority.

I think we have been handed an opportunity to put a big spanner in their works and it's been presented on a silver platter.

From what I've read on this topic, the queen is a mere figurehead and the real power is the Crown or the owners of the City of London.

Removing the Queen would certainly blow their cover, but the main problem would still remain... the big boys behind the Crown.

[Horn]

From Robert Chapman's "Trainwreck of the Week" at: http://www.theinternationalforecaster.com/index.php
Reader and contributor Hadashi continues...

Anyone still believing the British Empire is dead and buried will soon be dead and buried.

The EU is a stealth British Imperial takeover of Europe, a strategy requiring an American proxy operating via Bretton Woods (the "EFTA" as I observed weeks ago and confirmed by Chapman's IFC newsletter) and the UN, which is now coming to fruition (http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=73108).
And poisoned fruit it is. Take another bite of the Balfour Declaration, the apple of the Rothschild eye of Horus.
Best...
-HADASHI-


http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi/noframes/read/73288

[Glass]

From what I've read on this topic, the queen is a mere figurehead and the real power is the Crown or the owners of the City of London.

Removing the Queen would certainly blow their cover, but the main problem would still remain... the big boys behind the Crown.

I think it would cause all sort of issues for them and I for one would be happy for them to have lots of issues, hurdles and obstacles. IMO they would have to make monumental changes to develop some other form of Authority. Either they come out in open or they machinate another option.

We should not just hand this to them on a plate they should be made to fight for it regardless of who they are. Take the crown away from them and they are nothing.

[Horn]

http://resources2.news.com.au/images/2011/11/20/1226200/615698-princess-mary.jpg

Princess Mary and Prince Frederick in beachside stroll around Sculpture by the Sea

November 21, 2011 12:00AM



They attended the opening of the art project Curating Cities: Sydney-Copenhagen, which shows how creative approaches can be used in developing sustainable urban areas - hence the "energy-generating bikes" the pair rode, designed to power a blender.
No trip back home would be complete without an Australian barbecue, complete with prawns and snags, before boarding a barge to cross the Harbour to Admiralty House.

Princess Mary said she was pleased to make the journey without getting "drenched" as the clouds darkened.
Greeted by Governor-General Quentin Bryce, Princess Mary and her husband freshened up before stepping out for formal photographs.
By 4pm the tables were already set for a formal dinner for 60 guests, with spectacular blue hydrangeas as the centrepieces.

The royal couple dined on Australian red meat and wines - including a sparkling wine from Mary's native Tasmania.


http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/princess-mary-and-prince-frederick-in-beachside-stroll-around-sculpture-by-the-sea/story-e6freuy9-1226200616475

[General of Darkness]

They were replaced by the Rothschild family a long time ago. I think the only reason they're still there is to give the sheep some type of security that their system still exists while they flood the country with muds from Afreeka and muzzy nations.

[Horn]

I think the only reason they're still there is to give the sheep some type of security that their system still exists while they flood the country with muds from Afreeka and muzzy nations.

If Glass can manage to change the commonwealth to a republic, they may have no choice but to notice.

[Twisted Titan]

This article is pure bolderdash

Even if 100% true.....how will that improve the life of The Commoner?

it wont cause it never has.....rulership has always been the process of extraction from The Prolerteriat.

Their whole desire is to live at the expense of others.

They are the ultimate parasites

That's why each and every one of the can bow down on their right knee and kiss my Silver @$$.

[Glass]

They were replaced by the Rothschild family a long time ago. I think the only reason they're still there is to give the sheep some type of security that their system still exists while they flood the country with muds from Afreeka and muzzy nations.

I think this is how things are as well. She is a corporate mascot just like Ronald is.

[Glass]

This is something I watched earlier today. It is probably not going to be much interest to people outside of Australia but maybe to people interested in this kind of constitutional law. This guy has done the same research while working as a cop and discovered things were not right. Now is Ex Cop. He has strong beliefs and he's prepared to stand up for them. He is in the trenches I guess. I think you can come at this thing from several angles.

6 parts x 10 mins. Part 3 he talks about issuing a Writ of Mandamus (http://gold-silver.us/forum/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandamus) to the Corporate government we all seem to have these days. Basically it's a move to try and have them shutdown and the de-jure govt returned/repopulated under the constitution.

This mandamus event could have been the catalyst for them moving now to change the succession rules. I actually don't think this thing is about family succession. I think it is about being able to put anyone they want onto the throne. I think they are trying to open up the throne.

Part 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=U7HJI5Jwzt0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=U7HJI5Jwzt0

Part 3 - I think its this one
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRwoFNcBltc&feature=related

He says some very important things. He says that any major changes need to be passed in a Referendum of ALL the commonwealth states, not just countries but states within those commonwealth countries. Thats big opportunity for the people IMO.

[Glass]

In another forum, Wayne Glew is known of. It is said his material is mostly right but weak in key areas. I don't know enough. What I have seen is ok.

Part of that thread someone shared an interesting resource. The discussion was about historically, if the throne is usurped the King must honour the deeds/decisions of the usurper. Point is that even if Mr Hastings took the throne he would have to honour everything done by the Queen.

Then it went on to discusss how you control rulers or bridle them and that is usually via peers, earls etc according to the Of Law and customs of England web site (http://www2.ubicee.net/bracton/view/en/2/110)


[001] it is better and safer that the case proceed before the king himself. 1<No one may
[002] pass upon the king's act [or his charter] so as to nullify it,2 but one may say that the
[003] king has committed an injuria,3 and thus charge him with amending it,4 lest he
[004] [and the justices]5 fall into the judgment of the living God because of it. The king
[005] has a superior, namely, God.6 Also the law by which he is made king.7 Also his
[006] curia, namely, the earls and barons,8 because if he is without bridle, that is without
[007] law, they ought to put the bridle on him. [That is why the earls are called the
[008] partners, so to speak, of the king;9 he who has a partner has a master.]10 When11
[009] even they, like the king, are without bridle, then will the subjects cry out and say
[010] ‘Lord Jesus, bind fast their jaws in rein and bridle.’12 To whom the Lord [will
[011] answer], ‘I shall call down upon them a fierce nation and unknown, strangers from
[012] afar, whose tongue they shall not understand,13 who shall destroy them and pluck
[013] out their roots from the earth.’14 By such they shall be judged because they will not
[014] judge their subjects justly, and in the end, bound hand and foot, He shall send them
[015] into the fiery furnace and into outer darkness, where there will be wailing and
[016] gnashing of teeth.>15The things we do, like it or not usually come from ancient practice. This is a database of sorts.

I've just been browsing it going from page to page. Very interesting reading. You can see where things we are seeing clearly these days actually came from.

Of the Law and Customs of England (http://www2.ubicee.net/bracton/view/en/2/113)


[001] or ‘certain gloves or so many pennies;’ the tenant may then choose which of them
[002] he wishes to pay, and by paying one he is discharged. All these and many others
[003] lie in rents and renders. There is [another] kind of rent, given to be taken from
[004] some specified thing, with or without power to distrain, which is not called a
[005] service, but, as though it arose by feoffment, a free tenement, of which [more]
[006] will be said below [in the portion] on the assises.1 Some services belonging to the
[007] chief lord consist of acts, done customarily from term to term, [they must be
[008] mentioned in the charter otherwise they cannot be claimed,] as where it is said,
[009] ‘and doing thence suit to the court of his lord and his heirs from fortnight to
[010] fortnight (or ‘from three weeks to three weeks’) in every year, from term to term’
[011] [or] ‘doing thence so many ploughings, so many mowings, so many reapings,’
[012] which all belong to lords2 from tenements so given to free men. They arise from
[013] tenements and may be called feudal or praedial services, not personal [since they
[014] are owed] only by reason of lands and tenements. One may also enfeoff another by
[015] serjeanty, [which may be of many kinds, some pertaining to the lord, the feoffor,
[016] others to the king,] as where it is said, by the service of riding with his lord or lady,
[017] such persons being properly called ‘rodknights,’ or by the service of holding the
[018] pleas of their lords, or carrying letters within a certain precinct,3 or feeding greyhounds
[019] or4 harriers, or mewing hawks, or finding bows and arrows, or carrying them,
[020] and [many others], for the number of such serjeanties is infinite. 5[All such services
[021] may be called intrinsec, because they are to be expressed in charters and instruments.]
[022] Since they are not done for the king's host and the defence of the realm, but
[023] will remain to chief lords,6 from such serjeanties no marriage or wardship ought
[024] to accrue to the chief lord, any more than from socage.7

[Neuro]

Therein lies your main disability.

Read up on the Emperor of North America. Emperor Norton saw fit to consult nobody prior to taking this office.

http://www.sfhistoryencyclopedia.com/articles/n/nortonJoshua.html
Great story! He seems to have conducted his empire back then similar to the USA of today!:


As a crowd gathered, the police moved his body to the city morgue. His clothes were as disheveled as always, and he had only a few coins on him - a gold piece worth $2.50, $3 in silver, and a French franc dated 1828, bearing the face of Charles X, France's last Bourbon king. He had a bundle of his 50 cent imperial treasury notes, dated for repayment in 1890. He intended to exchange these notes for his original notes, due and payable this very month, which he could not have honored.

[palani]

Great story! He seems to have conducted his empire back then similar to the USA of today!:

Notice he carried both gold and silver. As to the notes, replacing one debt instrument with another is acceptable practice, as long as it is accepted. This is a form of novation. The old entity is dead. The new one accepts the debt. Bush had the debt when he was president. Obama accepted the debt load when he took office.

Back to the gold and silver. These are required to retain some semblance of solvency to make the debt scheme work. Shake down Obama's pockets and I expect you will find neither gold nor silver in ANY amount. Only his dentist knows if he has any on his person.

[Neuro]

Here is one of his imperial treasury billshttp://www.emperornorton.net/mirror/http/home.nycap.rr.com_80/useless/norton/norton3.jpg

[palani]

Here is one of his imperial treasury billshttp://www.emperornorton.net/mirror/http/home.nycap.rr.com_80/useless/norton/norton3.jpg

Can hardly call it counterfeiting.

[Neuro]

Hmmm...

Emperor Neuro sounds good! My empire will cover the area of the former Ottoman empire, together with the Swedish empire at the height of its conquests... Oops, Israel just changed name!

[palani]

Emperor Neuro sounds good!

Got to review Roman history before you proceed. Notice specifically how all attention is paid to Caesar and the Emperor is basically ignored. Caesar is the next "Emperor" wannabe. Any action the Emperor takes is through Caesar. Then guess who gets the blame? [hint ... it is not the Emperor].

[Horn]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77gud7UdG2Y