Our so-called "defender of the faith" grants
we peasants her most glorious indifference to a vital and sacred issue of our
historic Liberty and Rights...
On March 30, 2003 a letter was sent to "Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II" to
petition her answer to whether or not she still had a duty to uphold and defend
the Magna Carta, as sworn to before God in the sight of many witnesses, as
our alleged defender of the congregation [Church] and the most Holy Faith.
Below is her rather puzzling [non] answer to a VERY straightforward
question...... For the record, her coronation oath already committed her to this very thing, so why does she refuse to answer? This is one of her few actual duties... other than count money.
She swore her Coronation Oath in
1953: "to govern the peoples of
the United Kingdom (and
commonwealth) according to their laws
Bench of Alberta
Docket No. 9012000725, Dec 10, 1990.]
[Note to BCR readers: Another letter was sent [March 2005] AGAIN requesting a clear
answer [NOT OPINION] to the question of
her current role in honouring and defending the peace treaty between Crown and
FREE men and women - our eternal Magna Carta.
and when a reply is received, it will be posted here as soon as it is
forwarded to us. [UPDATE: still no reply as of November 2008]
These are not trivial matters... they are issues of vital
significance and enduring principle. If in fact the "Crown" has abandoned the
sacred promises and duties contained [and consented to by all parties] within
Magna Carta, then the Crown no longer has any consent to rule, and the
Government as a whole is therefore ultra vires and has as much
authority to govern as, lets say, the senior women's lawn bowling club, or
It therefore would be required of us to form a Republican style of government
OR select a new Crown.
So why won't the "Queen/Defender of the Faith" answer
this very straightforward question? This really is a troubling situation, and we suspect they are
hoping the public has no concern for genuine 'rule of law' OR their fundamental
liberties and freedoms.
If this is true, then we are in a most grievous state of affairs, as
unrestrained government ALWAYS leads to militant tyranny and violence. Power
corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely!
Is this the legacy you want to pass on to your children? Think about it!
Recently we were asked if anyone had "in
writing" the position of the alleged federal government acknowledging their
sacred DUTY to abide by ALL the rights and freedoms protected in Magna
Carta, as this Supreme Law demands.
Such a letter was sent October 22/06 by a
Patriot supporter, and they have given us permission to publish their
response, when it becomes available.
LONDON (Reuters) - A senior London policeman who
had to apologise for an anti-terror raid in which a man was shot, has been
honoured by the Queen, prompting a swathe of criticism on Saturday.
Hold on a moment.... In her letter, our alleged 'protector of the faith' and
sacred 'Great Charter', stated she did not give "personal opinion". So just
what is it she is giving (urging in fact) us in the following address 'to the faiths
of the world'?
Royal Mail is set to honor Marie Stopes, a feminist who opened the first birth control clinic in Britain in 1921 as well as being Nazi sympathizer and a eugenicist who advocated that non-whites and the poor be sterilized, by adopting her image for a new set of stamps. [Click here for article]
- Todd David Schwartz, CBS Determined to find the law that requires Americans to pay income tax,
Aaron Russo (THE ROSE, TRADING PLACES) sets out on a journey. Neither
left- nor right-wing, this startling examination exposes the systematic
erosion of civil liberties in America.
Through interviews with US Congressmen, a former IRS Commissioner,
former IRS and FBI agents, tax attorneys and authors, Russo connects the
dots between money creation, federal income tax, voter fraud, the
national identity card (becoming law in May 2008) and the implementation
of radio frequency identification (RFID) technology to track citizens. A
striking case about the evolving police state in America.
Queen Elizabeth II:
$67.3 Million on Travel Last Year
NewsMax.com Wires Thursday, June 29, 2006
LONDON -- Queen Elizabeth II spent more taxpayer money last fiscal year -
$67.3 million in all - because of overseas visits and extra security,
Buckingham Palace said Wednesday. Overall, the queen and her household spent
4.2 percent more than they did the previous fiscal year, the palace said in
its annual expenditures report.
The government's contribution to meeting the costs of the queen's household
is known as the Civil List. The palace said more than 70 percent of the list's
$20 million in expenditures paid the salaries of 310 royal staff.
The queen also spent $1.8 million on catering and hospitality, up
from $1.6 million in 2004.
A total of $36 million spent by the queen came from grants from the
Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Department of Transport.
The cost of new security measures at the Palace came to about $275,000, the
royal accountants said.
The increases came after the Daily Mirror reporter Ryan Parry gained access
to Buckingham Palace as a royal footman in 2003 just before President Bush
The cost of royal travel rose by 10 percent to $9.9 million, of which
$8.2 million was spent on air travel. That included a reconnaissance trip
by some of Prince Charles's staff to the United States ahead of his visit
there, which cost more than $79,000.
By contrast, a reconnaissance trip by Buckingham Palace staff to Australia
and Singapore ahead of the queen's official visit cost $27,000.
A palace spokesman said Charles's U.S. trip - his first with new wife
Camilla - "was a very complicated trip. There were a lot of different
interests related to the engagement he was carrying out."
During the 2005-2006 fiscal year, the royal family made 14 journeys on the
royal train, compared with 19 the year before. They also took 48 scheduled
Alan Reid, Keeper of the Privy Purse, said the royal household has asked
the government for $1.8 million a year extra, plus an adjustment for
inflation, to run the royal palaces.
The household receives $27 million annually for running the palaces, but
Reid said the figure was set in 1998 and is now out of date.
"If we're going to maintain historic buildings that we're responsible for,
we will need more money," he said.
The coronation of the Prince of Wales must be an "interfaith" event, the
former Archbishop of Canterbury has controversially claimed.
Lord Carey believes that the next coronation needs "very significant changes"
so that it is "inclusive" of other religions that have spread across Britain.
His comments, which are likely to cause a rift within the Church of England,
suggest that Lord Carey, the Archbishop of Canterbury for 11 years until 2002,
has been won over by arguments from Prince Charles.
The prince, who will become Supreme Governor of the Church of England when
he becomes king, has already said that he wants to be Defender of Faith
- not Defender of the Faith - when he accedes to the throne.
Lord Carey's comments will set him and the prince against Dr Rowan Williams,
the current Archbishop of Canterbury, and other senior figures in the Church
of England. Dr Williams has emphasised the need for Prince Charles to defend
the Church of England when he becomes king.
In a television interview to be broadcast later this month, Lord Carey says:
"When the time comes for the next coronation there's got to be a number of
changes. Very significant changes. The Queen came to the throne at a time when
the Church of England was really the only Christian faith in the country.
"And there were no Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus around to be in any way evident in
the life of the country. Now it's a completely different world, so the
coronation oath would have to be looked at more critically.
"It's got to be a much more interfaith coronation service next time around.
Prince Charles put his finger on it and there's no way in which the sovereign
can be defender of one faith. Although I hope that the next coronation will
say very firmly that Christianity is still the dominant faith of the United
Kingdom... it's got to be a much more inclusive character."
Lord Carey, 75, who remains an influential figure within the Anglican Church,
made his comments in a television interview with Gyles Brandreth, the
broadcaster and writer, for Channel 5.
His comments follow a Home Office report, aimed at tackling "religious
discrimination", which said that a coronation oath in which the monarch swears
to uphold the Protestant faith may not be appropriate in modern, multi-faith
Lord Carey's comments are likely to be welcomed by Prince Charles. He caused
controversy in 1994 when, in an interview with Jonathan Dimbleby, he told of
his desire to be Defender of Faith rather than Defender of the Faith.
However, one senior royal aide cautioned against any suggestion that the
prince would fail in his responsibilities to the Church of England. "While the
Prince of Wales believes in faith, he is a devout Christian and an Anglican,"
Lord Carey's comments are unlikely to be welcomed, however, at Lambeth Palace.
In an interview in 2003, Dr Williams warned the prince that he must stick to
his duty to defend the Church of England. "Unless something really radical
happens with the constitution, he is, like it or not, Defender of the Faith
and he has a relationship with the Christian Church of a kind which he does
not have with other faith communities."
The crowning of the sovereign has taken place for almost 1,000 years at
Westminster Abbey. The new king or queen takes the coronation oath which
includes a pledge to maintain the Church of England.
In his interview, Lord Carey also reveals that he thinks that the Queen may
abdicate if she becomes seriously ill. His views will surprise many royal
officials who have always insisted that the Queen would rule until she dies.
Lord Carey says: "I think the only thing that would make her abdicate would be
if she became ill, or too incapacitated to do [the role] to the full level of
"And I could see her one day thinking, 'Well I'm not doing my job well, I
don't want to be a Queen Victoria in my old age just going through the
Lord Carey reveals that after Diana, Princess of Wales died in 1997, he and Dr
David Hope, the then Archbishop of York, had a crisis discussion and
considered making a public statement to defend the Queen against criticism
that she had not made a public appearance.
"I consulted with the Archbishop of York and we felt there was no point in
coming out into the open, because it would only make matters worse." Lord
Carey insisted that the Queen was "devastated" by Diana's death.
Lord Carey said he was upset by Earl Spencer's speech at the princess's
funeral. "I was quite opposed to him giving that address. I didn't feel it did
justice to his sister... it wasn't fair to the Royal Family... My feeling is
that [the Queen] wasn't happy at all about that address and would have liked
something that was spoken of Diana's faith."
• Philip & Elizabeth: Channel 5, June 12 and June 19 at 8pm.
Eph 4:4 - 6 There is one body and one Spirit, even as
you are called in one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism,
one God and Father of all, who is above all and through all and in you all.
Though clearly only having a merely symbolic role, the monarchy does indeed
have sacred duties inscribed to it by the concurrence of Crown. There can be
no compromise of the performance of those duties without a complete collapse
of the government of Canada, and other commonwealths, that need both the
consent of the people AND Crown to gain license to govern. If the Crown were
to (and it appears clear they have) abandon the duties of Magna Carta, then
the contract between free men, commoners, titled land owners, and the Crown
is null and void.
Never was there a more profound example of this apostasy
than that of denying the defend of the most Holy faith, and the belief in
the One True Saviour, Jesus/Yeshua.
Christian, Muslim, Sikh and Jewish: multi-faith coronation for
Charles By Jonathan Wynne-Jones (Telegraph, UK)
The coronation of the Prince of Wales will
be a "multi-faith" event.
Prayers and readings from other
denominations and religions, including from the Muslim, Sikh
and Jewish faiths, are expected to be included in the
ceremonies marking Prince Charles's accession to the throne.
Prince Charles on a visit to a
Sikh temple earlier this year
Canon John Hall, the Dean-elect of
Westminster Abbey, said that the traditional Church of
England coronation service must be revised to reflect
society's changes since the Queen's coronation in 1953. As
dean, he will be on the committee responsible for drawing up
"The coronation service needs to find the
right way of including people of other faiths," Canon Hall
told The Sunday Telegraph. "It must be different in some
ways because of the nature of society and how things have
He said that the Church must be prepared
to let other faiths play a role in the service. "We need to
recognise the reality of religion at the heart of our
national life. Rather than hold it possessively, it has
become possible to help to create space for other religions
within our national life. It is leading to inclusion and
The proposed changes follow comments
already made by Prince Charles, who has said that he wants
to be "Defender of Faith" – not "Defender of the Faith"
– when he succeeds to the throne.
The Duke of Norfolk, in his role as Earl
Marshal, has already begun overseeing a review of the
ceremonies for the accession, and will consult with the dean
over the coronation service.
Although at 80, the Queen remains in good
health, preliminary discussions have already begun between
the duke and Clarence House over possible alterations to the
service, The Sunday Telegraph has learnt. The Prince's
office is conducting a parallel review of the accession
Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of
Canterbury, has said that he thinks that the Queen may
abdicate if she becomes seriously ill.
Canon Hall suggested that the revised
service should follow an inclusive style similar to the
Commonwealth Observance, a Church of England ceremony in
which people from other denominations and faiths take part
by saying prayers and sharing testimonies.
Alison Ruoff, a member of the General
Synod, the church's parliament, voiced concern about the
"We should not pander to political
correctness," she said. "There is no way that other faiths
should be involved in the service. This is a Christian
country and so the coronation service must remain
exclusively Christian and we should not apologise for that."
Canon Hall praised the prince's success in
reaching out to "other communities" within our society and
welcomed his desire to be "Defender of Faith".
The prince expressed his wish to be more
inclusive in 1994, saying: "I believe that the Catholic
subjects of the sovereign are as important [as Protestants],
not to mention the Islamic, Hindu and Zoroastrian."
However, Canon Hall emphasised that the
Church of England must remain at the heart of the coronation
since the prince will be its Supreme Governor when he
The crowning of the sovereign has taken
place for almost 1,000 years at Westminster Abbey. The new
king or queen takes the coronation oath, which
includes a pledge to "maintain" the Church of England.
The Dean of Westminster's main role in a
coronation service is assisting the Archbishop of
Canterbury, which includes handing the archbishop the crown
to put on the monarch's head.
As a Royal Peculiar church, like St
George's Chapel at Windsor, Westminster Abbey falls under
the direct jurisdiction of the Queen rather than that of a
In the past 10 years, the dean has
conducted the funerals of the Queen Mother and Diana,
Princess of Wales, and the service for the Queen's golden
Canon Hall, who was the church's chief
education officer, will be installed as Dean of Westminster
in December and succeeds the Very Rev Wesley Carr, who left
the post in February.
Canon Hall claimed that the Church of
England still had a vital role to play in the life of the
nation despite a continual decline in the number of its
"Well over 50 per cent of the population
see themselves as belonging to the Church of England. It's a
sign of far greater adherence than is often suggested."
In a move likely to spark further accusations of a whitewash, the coroner, Baroness Butler-Sloss, yesterday ruled that she will retain tight control over the mass of documents from the £4million Operation Paget inquiry into the Princess’s death.
While some information from the three-year investigation will be made available to the legal teams acting for Harrods owner Mohamed Al Fayed – whose son Dodi also died in the crash – Lady Butler-Sloss argued that other material would remain “personal and private”.
She also implied that neither Charles nor Philip would have to give evidence at the hearing, ruling that it would be quite wrong to release any “personal or private” information to the public.
Prince Charles flies back to Britain today after his two-week tour of India and the Middle East as the scandal over allegations of a sexual incident involving him and a [male] royal servant reaches new heights. [full story]
Linked by blood but twice divided by
war, the royal family's relationship with Germany, its people and its troubled
history has long been a sensitive one. The photograph of Prince Harry wearing
a swastika has echoes of one particularly disturbing incident involving the
family, one which seared itself into the British collective memory - that of
the Duke and Duchess of Windsor meeting Adolf Hitler in 1937.
The ex-King Edward VIII and his wife
were known sympathisers of the Nazis and their policies, a feeling shared by a
large number of British aristocrats who admired the way Hitler was dealing
with the Communists.
The Nazis regarded the duke, who had
abdicated over his affair with divorced American Wallis Simpson, as a
potential ally and a possible head of state for a subjugated Britain.
But his flirting with Hitler's regime
threatened to undermine years of work by the royal family to distance
themselves from their German roots.
The modern royal family was founded
in 1840 when Queen Victoria married Albert of Saxe-Coburg, a Germany duchy,
creating The House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. Such was the ill-feeling towards all
things German during the First World War that in 1917 Victoria's grandson King
George V - an honorary Field Marshal in the German army - thought it prudent
to renounce the German name and titles and adopt that of Windsor.
It was a masterful PR exercise,
replacing the Teutonic surname with that of a quintessentially home counties
His son Edward VIII once declared:
"There is not one drop of blood in my veins that is not German." Both he and
George VI were bilingual in German and English.
Throughout the Twenties and Thirties,
the royals were steadfastly opposed to conflict with their ancestral
fatherland. Indeed George V's wife Queen Mary always maintained that Britain
had "backed the wrong horse" in 1914.
His son's meeting with Hitler
threatened irrevocably to undermine the royal family's support among their
It took the Queen Mother's
steadfastness in the face of German bombs and her visit to the East End during
the Blitz to restore public faith in the family.
The Windsors' links with Germany
remained a touchy subject however. There was embarrassment in the Eighties
when Princess Michael of Kent's father, Baron Gunther von Reibnitz, was
exposed as a former Nazi party member and SS officer.
Less well known is the fact that one
of Prince Philip's sisters, Sophie, was married to Christopher of Hesse-Cassel,
an SS colonel who named his eldest son Karl Adolf in Hitler's honour. Indeed,
all four of Philip's sisters married high-ranking Germans.
The prospect of the former Nazis and
Nazi sympathisers attending his wedding to the Queen meant he was allowed to
invite only two guests.
As the Public Record Office
releases more documents concerning the abdication of King Edward VIII, BBC
News Online looks at his life.
King Edward VIII, who became the
Duke of Windsor, found himself at the centre of a personal and political
storm which shook the foundations of the monarchy.
More than 30 years after his
death, his life continues to intrigue and tantalise historians.
Some commentators see him as a
pampered playboy, whose louche lifestyle and numerous relationships with
married women, most notably Mrs Simpson, made him unfit to be King.
Others believe this outward
appearance masked something much darker - a fascination with Nazism, possibly
even a brooding determination to overthrow his brother George VI.
The young Edward enjoyed a busy
Edward was born on 23 June 1894. His father, who became George V in 1910, was
a fierce disciplinarian.
Besides Edward - always called David
by his family - there were four other royal princes: Bertie - later George VI,
Henry, George, and John.
Edward, good-looking, raffish and
easy going, was the pick of the crop.
After becoming Prince of Wales in
1911 and serving in the Grenadier Guards during World War I, he became the
darling of 1920s society.
Life was a seemingly endless round of
balls, cocktail parties and country house weekends. His penchant for married
women was already well-known in aristocratic circles.
During the early 1930s, Mrs Wallis Warfield Simpson, a divorcee from
Baltimore, Maryland, was constantly with him.
But there was another, more serious,
side to Edward's character.
During the Depression which followed
the Wall Street Crash of 1929, he visited poverty-stricken areas of the UK and
encouraged 200,000 unemployed men and women to join his back-to-work scheme.
His popularity far outstripped that
of his distant father.
Following George V's death in January
1936, the new King faced two huge problems.
The first was his love for Wallis
Simpson: as King, and Supreme Governor of the Church of England, he could not
marry a divorcee. He would have to choose between his country and his lover.
The second was that some felt
that the new King was too sympathetic to Nazi Germany.
Following Edward's accession, the
German embassy in London sent a cable for the personal attention of Hitler
In part, it read: "An alliance
between Germany and Britain is for him (the King) an urgent necessity."
Alan Lascelles, Edward's private
secretary, gave his own harsh judgment of the situation.
The Windsors met Hitler in 1937
"The best thing that could happen to
him would be for him to break his neck."
Within the year Edward, pressurised
by the Church of England, the government and royal courtiers, decided to
In October 1937, Edward and his wife
- by now the Duke and Duchess of Windsor - visited Nazi Germany.
They met Hitler, dined with his
deputy, Rudolf Hess, and even visited a concentration camp. The camp's guard
towers were explained away as meat stores for the inmates.
At the outbreak of war, the duke
served as a military liaison officer in Paris before eventually ending up in
Lisbon after the French capitulation.
Hitler, wishing to bring the duke
into his camp, made an abortive attempt to coax Edward and his wife to Spain,
which was then sympathetic to the Nazi cause.
But the duke soon moved on to become
Governor of the Bahamas from 1940-45. It was while he was there that he is
said to have made his views explicit.
He reputedly told a journalist that
"it would be a tragic thing for the world if Hitler was overthrown".
To an acquaintance on the island, the
Duke reportedly said: "After the war is over and Hitler will crush the
Americans...We'll take over...They (the British) don't want me as their King,
but I'll be back as their leader."
After the war, the duke and duchess
returned to France. He died there in 1972, while the Duchess lived on until
Though the official Whitehall view
was that "His Royal Highness never wavered in his loyalty to the British
cause", the reputation of "the King who never was" seems destined to remain
cloaked in ambiguity.
Newly released FBI files suggest the alleged Nazi connections of Wallis
Simpson prevented her marrying King Edward while he was monarch.
The revelations are contrary to the
long-held belief that the stumbling block was the American's status as a
King Edward abdicated the throne in
December 1936, following a constitutional crisis, and married her in exile the
These FBI files were written in the
1940s but are now released under America's Freedom of Information Act.
Wallis Simpson was viewed by some as
an unsuitable wife
They suggest stronger connections between the Duchess of Windsor - as she was
known after marriage - and the Germans than previously believed.
The documents are a combination of
surveillance, informants and hearsay.
One memo said that the British
Government, headed by Stanley Baldwin, had known for some time that the
Duchess was exceedingly pro-German in her sympathies.
The FBI believed she was considered
so obnoxious by the British that they refused to permit Edward to marry her.
Reports emerged last year that the
FBI also sent agents to spy on the royal couple after allegations that the
Duchess might have been passing secrets to a leading Nazi with whom she was
thought to have had an affair.
It is suggested the surveillance had
been ordered after President Roosevelt expressed concern about the couple's
Queen's and Bush's relationship to ruling bloodlines and cult of death....
James Andanson, who followed the Princess’s every move in the week before her death, was thought to have committed suicide when his burnt corpse was found in the wreckage of a car in the French countryside.
But now the fireman who discovered the body, Christophe Pelat, has said: “I saw him at close range and I’m absolutely convinced that he had been shot in the head, twice.” [full story]
Michael Mansfield, QC, for Mr Fayed, wanted the Queen to be asked about a conversation she allegedly had with the former royal butler Paul Burrell, in which she was said to have mentioned "other forces, powers at work within the state". [full story]