The British Crown is NOT the monarch (King Charles III) ....

A British propaganda machine was turned on yesterday to proclaim these words:

​This is political propaganda designed to force you into making a decision that is based upon a false premise!

"The Queen was the monarchy, the monarchy was the Queen. Whatever the truth of her life, mythology and deference have shaped how people view this archaic institution."
That statement begins this article, and taken at face value, it is true, but when it is considered within  the context of the Crown institution that Queen Elizabeth represented, it is 100% false!

This same piece of political propaganda continues with these words about Queen Elizabeth, who was only 'number two' in England, because she was only the first 'Queen Elizabeth' in Scotland. However, the writer sidesteps that issue by referring to the Queen as "her" ....

"Her death leaves the monarchy in trouble, with the uninspiring Charles and William carrying the flame, while Andrew and Harry – for very different reasons – pour fuel on embers of discontent. But it isn’t just about one family, this is an institution well past its time, one that sets itself against the principles most of us think are important, values such as democracy, equality and the rule of law. It is, by its very nature, undemocratic." 

Now this is where the 'magic' sleight of hand takes place:

One minute we are discussing a 'royal family', which is interchanged with the term 'monarchy', and the next minute we are discussing an 'institution'. But the 'institution' in question is not this 'royal family', but an institution called the 'Crown' which is defined in law as a corporation sole.

In lay terms a corporation sole is where the non-human artificial entity is linked to one human person as its sovereign representative, and when that human person dies, another human person immediately takes their place: "The Queen is dead, long live the King!"

One minute the representative is named Elizabeth, and the next minute the representative is named Charles.

But the institution of the Crown is not terminated, it continues on because under the system of law that created this corporation sole, it is in fact a dictatorship: it is the law and there can be no higher power - except for God - which is where the Crown in England claims to derive its authority.

So if the monarch dies, then who is running the Crown?

The Privy Council.

It has a large membership, but at is core is a very secretive form of continuing organization and that is where the power behind the Crown actually resides. Years ago Tony Benn discovered this anomaly and he even wrote a booklet for the Fabian Society about it. We have a copy of it in our library! Benn wanted to scrap the House of Lords and replace it with the ready-to-go Privy Council. He was obviously unsuccessful and he was then attacked (often unfairly) at every turn. The Privy Council does not want this true account of what the British Crown is, to be revealed to the hoi polloi. You might get upset if you know the true story.

To trace back the history of the Crown in England, we have to go back to its King Henry VIII, who was on England's throne from 1509 until his death in 1547. King Henry VIII was the King of England, he was not the King of Scotland.

In Scotland, during the time of England's King Henry III, King James IV sat on the throne. He was there from 1488 until his death in 1513, but there was a big difference between those two monarchs and what they individually represented.

King Henry VIII of England claimed supreme power over both the 'spiritual' (religious) and political lives of "his" subjects. He claimed that his authority came only from God. But in Scotland, King James IV only claimed to be the 'King of Scots', and not the boss of everything and everyone. King James IV knew that he ruled by the grace of the political machine that represented the people living in Scotland.

King James IV of Scotland was followed by King James V of Scotland while King Henry VIII was still on his throne in England. It was not until a quirk in the dynasty of King Henry VIII occurred upon his death in 1647, that for his next-in-line, the Crown in England looked to the Kingdom of Scotland for help. That help came when Scotland's King James VI moved his base from Edinburgh to London, and that is where he also became King James V of England - while still remaining as King James VI of Scotland. This is why calling the now deceased Queen, Elizabeth II when she was the first Elizabeth in Scotland, is a sham. That myth was concocted by none other than the deceased Sir Winston Churchill. But the now departed Queen Elizabeth II of England was in fact the first Queen Elizabeth in Scotland!

So where did all this confusion come from?

We invite you to read our monologue on this blog that preceded this edition.

The sham began not with King Henry VIII, but with the Papacy in Rome and the bogus claim which the Papacy now freely admit was a fraudulent claim. It goes like this: The Roman Emperor Constantine who came from York in England, ended up in what is now present-day Turkey.

This man, according to a fraudulent document called the 'Donation of Constantine', gave one of the Popes the Western half of the Roman Empire, and that is how the Popes allegedly became both Head of a Church and Head of all lessor rulers such as kings and queens. It was this myth in which Constantine made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire by which the Emperor ruled the spiritual and temporal lives of everyone under his jurisdiction. So when Constantine allegedly gave away the Western half of the Roman Empire to the Papacy, well along with it went the power to rule the spiritual and temporal power of the Emperor.

Now the Pope was the 'big boss' representing God on Earth.

Not everyone bought into this nonsense. Both Luther and Calvin continued to harp on about this lie, long after its falsity was admitted, because the political machine kept it alive for political purposes. Even the Scottish 'Declaration of Arbroath' of 1320 told the Pope of that day to get his vassal King Edward I to stop invading the Kingdom of Scotland, or else the Kingdom of Scotland which in theory was also subject to the power of the Pope, would simply take matters into its own hands.

But in reality the Western half of the Roman Empire was never ruled by any Pope on behalf of God, and today at Vatican City they will proudly show you the fake documents in their 'secret' library. It is a present-day tourist attraction!

In fact, while a lot of the European kings gave no thought to the 'Donation of Constantine' in England it came to serve a sinister political service. It was England's King Henry VIII who grabbed hold of that fake Papal claim, and this is how King Henry VIII became both the Head of his new Church of England, and Head of the political realm in England.

To make sure you do not grasp any of this, the Crown and its broadcasting child called the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), have rammed this fiction down the throats of everyone using so-called 'historical drama' to do it. What the BBC is covering-up is the irrelevant back story about Henry VIII who ordered ax men to chop off the heads of women he did not like.

It is a horror story, and everyone focusses upon the brutal and thuggish actions of this idiotic man who really did order that the heads of women he did not like, to be chopped off. So everyone focuses upon that, and not on the really important back story - the source of his claimed power.

It was made up. He didn't have it, except by de facto 'might make right' power of dictatorship. The rule of a thug. Chopping off heads was a distraction. It was not about divorce. It was about political power - the power to control money, the treasury: What's mine is mine and what's yours is mine! Say otherwise and you will die!

Now how the current movement for Scottish independence is ever going to achieve victory by telling people a lie that their loss of sovereignty began in 1707 with Scotland becoming part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain, is a mystery. The year 1707 was long before Ireland was added to the mix in 1801, or even the earlier succession of the thirteen North American colonies. They declared independence in 1776 from the British Crown in order to initially create a confederacy called the United States of America. (The federal nation of the same name came later.)

But it is from this same murky, deceitful and totally fictitious story involving King Henry VIII that the British General Post Office was born under the direction of King Charles II and his boss, General George Monck from Coldstream in Scotland. Monck is the man who pulled off this fraud in 1660, and he was so successful in switching sides from the Cromwellian republic that proceeded Charles II, that over in America it inspired General Benedict Arnold to do the same thing, and fail.

Using the code name of 'Monck', Benedict Arnold dumped Washington's forces because he thought they were going to lose, and Arnold then began fighting for the British, but unlike the English under Charles II, they lost. So on the one hand General George Monck became the hero of the new Crown royalists under Charles II, while one hundred years or so later, General Benedict Arnold went down in patriotic stories told to American kids, about how Arnold became an American traitor.

But what does any of this have to do with 'Radio Caroline'?

Everything.

This is the real story of how the British Crown came to claim that all forms of communication in the British Isles had to be licensed by the British Crown. It is the back story of how Freeborn John Lilburne became a 'pirate publisher', and how we first stumbled on to the truth about these wild and spurious claims about authority claimed by the British Crown.

King Charles III is merely today's Crown puppet.

Charles III must surely know the real story and he must surely know that he is a fake - another great pretender claiming to be what he is not you see. Charles III should tell everyone the real story. He should spill the beans and tell the truth. But will he?

What Charles III will do is anyone's guess, but if Charles III attempts to tell the truth, would he then meet a fate similar to the one his deceased former wife met one night in a tunnel?

Time will tell, and so will we.

[CORRECTIONS: If you spot copy-related typographical errors, please report them via our Comments link.]

---