The Fake Jubilee

Next week we will "celebrate" Mrs Windsor's 60 years on the throne.

We get two days off work, so that's nice, but has she really been on the throne for 60 years? Some say she was never properly on the throne to start with, and others say that her reign lasted only 19 years.

The following are from my inbox:

Dear Editor,

THE FAKE JUBILEE

Arguably the Queen's Diamond Jubilee is the biggest Con perpetrated against the British people by the establishment since they were assured that joining what was then called the European Common Market would in no way effect essential national sovereignty when in truth and reality our national sovereignty was surrendered in accord with the principle of the Treaty of Rome to which the Queen signed us up in 1972.

In so doing the Queen surrendered the supremacy of the Crown and ended the monarchy. There can be no sovereign head of state in a nation which is no longer sovereign and no governor of a nation which is no longer self governing. The Queen also signed up to the Maastricht Treaty which established her as a citizen of the EU and as such subject to the constraints and obligations of that citizenship. No one can be both monarch and citizen at the same time. Despite the cover up by the British establishment the Queen has surrendered the authority vested in her by the people at the time of her coronation to give Royal Assent to any laws created by Parliament. (Reference the Merchant Shipping Act 1988)The Queen accordingly is no longer constitutional monarch and as we have no other form of monarch the Queen is therefore no monarch at all.

In truth Queen Elizabeth II reigned for just nineteen years not sixty. 

Yours Sincerely,  Bob Lomas. The Magna Carta Society.

And:

Dear Both,

Very sadly we totally agree with you.  She has never abided by her Coronation oaths from the time she allowed Traitor Ted to agree to her ratifying the European Communities Act 1972, and from then on every other act that gave away our national sovereignty and hers, culminating in the Maastricht Treaty that made her a European citizen, effectively stripping her of all sovereignty.  

The final act of perfidy was her agreeing to ratify the treaty of Lisbon, which her Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, had previously promised would be put to her people in a referendum.  We know for a fact she received hundreds of letters on this issue, which we suspect she never even bothered to read a representative sample of.   Those of us who wrote got replies from Sonia Bonici, her " Senior Correspondence Officer", who we gather passed every letter straight to the Foreign & Commonwealth Office, where they were probably binned or only seen by some junior apparatchik.

B&A

And, from Robbie the Pict:

Hi Folks,

The incompetence of Betty Battenburg's reign may have started at the very outset.  Dave asks if she actually signed the ECA72 and Maastricht:  I would be asking if she ever signed her Coronation Oath on the day.  I was personally 5 years old and don't remember but remember reading an account wherein the author claimed that there had been a preparational oversight in the Abbey and when Botox Betty was expected to pick up the pen and inscribe her moniker, she discovered that there was no ink in the well.  She paused and whispered the problem to the Archbishop who apparently said  'Just pretend you are signing, we'll sort it later'.  I thought was an interesting flaw in the proceedings and sought to view a DVD of the event, just to check.  However, the BBC recording has now been edited.  I am able to say that because the same DVD was on sale in Canada and was a few minutes longer, perhaps including that crucial moment.  Persons smarter than I could probably spot an edit if it does indeed exist, but the slightly longer (Canadian) version which I tried to order is now 'unavailable'!

We all know the importance of a Royal investiture, with every gesture and maneouvre having such significance, and a belated ,un-witnessed subscription by 'we know not who' is a catastrophic travesty of the whole proceedings, supposedly a semi-divine manifesting of Royal ritual, or so they would have us believe!  (Why wasn't at least Jesus there, if it was so important?!)

Have fun,

Robbie.

And now, a song:



I have made my position clear in the past: as Brenda has violated her oath more times than we can count, it stands to reason she is in error, and that being so, all those who swear an oath to her (the judiciary, parliament, the police, the armed forces etc) are also rendered powerless. This has enormous, almost unthinkable, ramifications.

If the monarchy is to be benign, a decoration, if you will, then that is fine by me. But what I cannot and will not stand for is a system that claims she is an intrinsic part of the way our nation is governed/ruled, and then acts, for all intents and purposes, ultra vires. The monarchy is either lawful or it isn't, there is no middle ground here. She is either monarch or European citizen. She cannot be both.

So which is it?

And you might want to read this article as well. It is rather timely.

CR.