June 20, 2011

Say What?

I hadn't realised that I had written almost 750 posts since this adventure began.

During a rare look-back, I was surprised to see which articles have stood the test of time. Which articles do people keep coming back to? The stats tell me that it is the ones I have highlighted below.

I didn't bother with any posts from this year because they are easily accessible.

This one, Stupid No More got a mixed reaction. Readers thought I was raging when I wrote the piece but I was as calm as a summers breeze. This was the first time I thought (and said) that violence was looking like the last tool in the box.

Unbound Released Free explains why we can (and should) disobey every single statute. A remarkable short film.

In this piece I ask are you Ready For Rebellion? And there was a mixed bag of yes/no/maybe. All very understandable.

I was hugely excited when John Hurst finally got to court and I wondered if it was History In The Making? But it was not to be. At least, not in the way we expected.

The Hierarchy explains where you sit in the food chain. It surprised some to learn that they are right at the top! This is amongst my personal favourites. I was very pleasantly surprised when I had finished writing the post.

This post, The Greatest Lie Ever Told, went down like a fire at an old folks home. It generated the most negative comments for any other piece I posted before, or since, that one. It's a long read and I think there are some diamonds in amongst the slag.

Let Us Talk, You And I, Of War went down pretty well. So much so, that our pal down under (where beer must flow and men chunder) permanently linked to it. A singular honour for which I am still grateful.

In this piece I report back on a saying No episode at Schiphol Airport. I did it again last Thursday morning and I am happy to report that more people joined me in the queue for the "normal" scanner.

In Marr's Attack I happily defended bloggers everywhere. He's still a cheeky jug-eared bastard.

Resurrection was something of a jaw-dropper. Have a look and see what you think.

This piece about Child Abusers And Snuff Rings brought howls of outrage and disgust. Rightfully so. It continues to be read weekly. I can only hope and pray that it is the right people looking at it, and, more importantly, taking action to gaol those concerned forever.

Another favourite (of mine) is Know Thine Enemy. For newbies, the enemy is not who you thought it was. Oh no. Not by a long chalk.

If you always wanted to enter Lawful Rebellion but didn't know where the right paperwork was, wonder no more. This is an obligation, not a life-style choice. Serious action for serious people who want their country to be governed the way it says on the tin.

If you just want to be awkward, read the last section of Options For Rebels

This one was remarkable for the number of visitors from uk.gov. Note that none of them commented on Tax Needn't Be Taxing.

In Recap I highlight some of the stuff we have learnt while writing this blog. I should do another one soon called Recap 2-The Recountening, because the shit I never knew I didn't know just keeps on growing.

To finish (for my fingers are sore) I could do no worse than to remind the world that when we lost Mrs Elizabeth Beckett we lost an absolutely amazing lady.

I may do another post like this in the coming days.

As always, your comments, which actually make the story, are most welcome.

CR.

6 comments:

Fatmanchris said...

Dear Cap'n R
I read with interest almost all your blogs whenever and wherever I travel to, recently I have returned home (UK) Where I have my Monarchist brother, he loves the royals a great deal and yes we have heated debates over lawful rebellion to which he kind of wins, here is his latest set of answers to one of your blogs which I think you would like to read....

Fatmanchris said...

The monarch is not elected per se, they are proclaimed and if for any reason they are considered unsuitable the Privy Council in the form of the Lords Commissioners are able to offer the crown to another heir who is considered suitable. (The Lords Commissioners were set up by George III after a bout of his madness paralysed the government and country because royal assent was needed for a regency but being incapacitated George III was unable to give it. So Parliament and the government (including the courts and civil service) were unable to function.


Monarchs can be proclaimed by popular consent and this has happened on a number of occasions but the monarch who has been proclaimed has to be approved by the Privy Council.


In England the monarch is not only ‘wedded’ to the people but also the Land. In Scotland the queen is known as ‘Queen of Scots’ (the people) as opposed to Scotland (the Land) in England and Wales she is known as The Queen of EngLAND.


The Queen is not obliged to do anything. Constitutional precedents assume that she will delegate these rolls and functions if she didn’t want to she could not appoint any ministers from any parties. This will never happen though. Queen Victoria occasionally choose as her First Lord of the Treasury the leader of the minority party in parliament because she either personally disliked or liked either candidate.


The ‘Crown’ is an abstract concept used to cover areas of government where royal prerogatives are exercised by ministers. It does not mean the monarch or the Queen in person or any of her state manifestations.


The Queen is NOT a person therefore she cannot be a citizen of anywhere. She is no more a citizen of the EU than she was a citizen of the UK or a subject of the UK.

There is no such person as Elizabeth Windsor, Elizabeth Mountbatten or any other ‘name’ people may wish to give the Queen. She is Elizabeth II of the House of Windsor. A house is not a family nor is the name of the house a surname.



She did not break her coronation oath in regards to the state of the UK the coronation oath she agrees to uphold god’s laws and the laws of the church. Even though the Church of England is the established church the laws passed by her through parliament and given her assent are not god or the church, they are hers. Church law is called canon law.

Murder and adultery are not only canon law or biblical law they were illegal in Celtic Britain and the Roman Empire. Morals and customs are not laws. By the way there are no statutes that make murder illegal. It is illegal by virtue of court precedent. And the law courts are another of the Queens Courts. If she really wanted she could actually sit in judgement like some medieval monarchs did.

Fatmanchris said...

The Queen is still monarch, even as monarch she cannot cease to be unless she specifically uses an instrument of abdication. The Maastricht treaty and all other EEC-EU treaties are NOT instruments of abdication; this is a specific device and document. Even if she decided no longer to be Queen unless this specific device was enacted she would still be a Queen regnant. This occurred in 1689 when James II was forced into exile and his protestant daughter Mary II became joint regnant with her husband William of Orange the Stadtholder of the Netherlands. In effect England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland had 2 ruling Kings and one ruling Queen. One was just excluded from power. The same happened during the late Plantagenet period with Kings reigning and ruling simultaneously.


A constitutional monarch in the sense of ours; is when she is the Queen IN parliament, all her other sovereign functions are not constitutional.



The UK is not a suzerain state or vassal to anyone. European law operates in this country alongside British law; it does not supersede it or over right it. It is written into law but it is not written into English common law but civil law, which is different.


I don’t think it likely John Major ever said those words, Hansard would show if he did.

The Queen never abdicated power in 1972 she couldn’t have unless you could find an actual written instrument of abdication specific document of Elizabeth II.


Civil law and European law come from parliament, and are signed by the Queen IN parliament (her as the constitutional roll) not by the Queen as Sovereign.

Fatmanchris said...

As you can tell he loves the Royals :) so tell me what do you think of his answers? the original post was of one that escapes me now, but I could find it if needed?

Chris:Fatman

Cedric Edwards said...

@Fatmanchris, thanks for the information :)

Captainranty, thank you for making the gems easier to locate. I hope you find the time to compile a list of the posts with descriptions, so that we can browse them easily in future.

keep up the good work.

Cedric

Fatmanchris said...

No Problem Cedric, one more peice of info concerning the Cestui Que Vie Act 1666. From how I understand it, it is simply an act to recover property and land from persons abroad whom are away for 7 years or more and not known to be dead or alive, and not a declaration that we are all dead and our souls are property of the crown!

sorry if I'm commenting on the wrong posts, but it takes ages to go through 750 posts!

Chris:Fatman