From our introductions into the facts we have started to discover what the Crown and Estates actually are, and where they find their authority in God. Queen Victoria had passed away on 22nd January 1901 leaving the powers of that authority to Edward VII.
Edward VII held the Throne for ten years passing away on 6th May 1910 and handing the reigns to George V. We can see by the Accession Declaration Act 1910 that it is titled Edward VII and George V at the time when the Realm was being transferred to George V as the king.
What is clear by this, is that it sits in line with the Bill of Rights Coronation Oath in that it defines that only a Protestant may sit on the throne and this act defines a declaration by the about to become Monarch that he was in fact protestant of faith.
13. ACCESSION DECLARATION ACT 1910
I [here insert the name of the Sovereign] do solemnly and sincerely in the presence of God profess, testify, and declare that I am a faithful Protestant, and that I will, according to the true intent of the enactments which secure the Protestant succession to the Throne of my Realm, uphold and maintain the said enactments to the best of my powers, according to law.
a) In presence of God
b) Must be a Faithful Protestant
c) Protestant Throne of the Realm
d) Must be of Protestant Succession
We can see that this declaration occurs in the presence of God, meaning that of the people themselves being the image of God, the Sons of the Realm in the wishes of their fathers. Professing, testifying and declaring are strong words to make statement that the king is of the correct faith and lineage to be able to hold the reigns to the realm.
What we have seen previously in Fact 12 is that the Parliament is attempting to overrule the monarchy by title which was proclaimed to be Great Britain and not the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Through this, we must now question the coronation process given that Royal Titles have been forged and now by Declaration are expected to be upheld.
The House of Commons being part of the Spiritual, Temporal and Commons defines that God had joined the Estates and that no man can seperate them. This is similar for the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act July 1900 having been through Debates of Federation and declared in the Preamble to that Act as an indissoluble Federal Commonwealth. Man is unable to dissolve what is forged under the Blessing of Almighty God.
We can see through this statement in the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland that they recognise the king as the father and husband to the Realm of England. Declaring the king as head to the body, and shepherd to the flock.
In the Commonwealth of Australia the Seat of Government was defined in Section 125 of the Constitution at Clause 9 of the Constitution Act. In its creation the Coat of Arms was given a Latin motto “PRO REGE LEGE ET GREGE” which translated states “The King, the law and his Flock”.
King James I defines the body in whole as that flock and expresses that he being the head doesnt see the body divided as a dishonour to God. This demonstrates that the Union of Crowns which occurs later is defined as one flock, and that extra-territorial dominions as colonies are a part of that flock.
Ezekiel 34:8 Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
8 As I live, saith the Lord God, surely because my flock became a prey, and my flock became meat to every beast of the field, because there was no shepherd, neither did my shepherds search for my flock, but the shepherds fed themselves, and fed not my flock;
Luke 12:32 Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
32 Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom.
In 1910, the Commonwealth of Australia as defined in Clause 8 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act July 1900 is still party to the realm of England and its extra territorial dominion. We can see in Proclomation 1927 that this effectively changes. We will investigate this further in future facts.
Mark 10:9 Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
14. HOUSE OF COMMONS
What God hath conjoined let no man separate. I am the husband and the whole isle is my lawful wife; I am the head and it is my body; I am the shepherd and it is my flock. I hope therefore that no man will think that I, a Christian King under the Gospel, should be a polygamist and husband to two wives; that I being the head should have a divided or monstrous body or that being the shepherd to so fair a flock should have my flock parted in two (King James I speech in The House of Commons 22 March 1604)
a) The Monarch is married to the People to form the Realm
b) Union of Crowns (Scotland and England being Great Britain) was one people not two.
c) Britannia includes multiple Dominions including Australia
d) King James I & IV was a Christian Protestant King
As the shepherd to a flock, the king defines the guidance and established faith in the Holy Scripture as being the core of the Parliaments responsibilities. This puts the Royal Law into perspective when it constantly speaks of having no respect for persons. And makes it relative when it speaks of listening to the law of the estates of god, rather then men and the law made in their personas.
Acts 5:29 Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.
George V was followed by George VI which will will demonstrates soon to be King of the Commonwealth of Australia through the actions of ANZAC during the Great War 1914-1918. We can already see through Fact 12 that Title in the English Empire has been changed to seperate what was once a united kingdom back to Great Britain by Title defining Ireland and the Dominions beyond the seas as self governing bodies.
This brings an unforseen issue to the foreground in that a king may not rule more than one kingdom, being anchored in faith to hold a Realm and Throne.
What this does is make the Coronation of Queen Elizabeth II questionable at law. We will even discover that the British Parliament admits that the coronation process is not in accordance with law. The Queen herself in Christmas Message 1957 stating very openly the following:
In the old days the Monarch led his soldiers on the battlefield and his leadership at all times was close and personal. Today things are very different, I cannot lead you into battle, I do not give you laws, or administer justice, but i can do something else… I can give you my heart and my devotion to these old islands and to all the peoples of our brotherhood of nations.
If you take this into consideration along with the Proclomation and Royal Styles and Parliamentary Titles 1927 at Facts 11 and 12 you might begin to see a problem.
15. CORONATION OF ELIZABETH THE SECOND
Archbishop: Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the Peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Pakistan and Ceylon, and of your Possessions and other Territories to any of them belonging or pertaining, according to their respective laws and customs?
Queen: I solemnly promise so to do.
Archbishop: Will you to your power cause Law and Justice, in Mercy, to be executed in all your judgements?
Queen: I will.
Archbishop: Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel?
Queen: All this I promise to do.
What we witness here is that the Oath is not in accordance with the Coronation Oaths Act 1688 nor is it in accordance with the Accession Declaration Act 1910. We have a Monarch that has taken a promise to cause Law and Justice but in Christmas Message stated on the record to not be able to give us laws.
By 1957 the Queen has either broken her promise, or something else has influenced the Queen so that she is clearly unable to keep her promise. The bad part here is, that she didnt tell anybody why. She only hints at it in her Christmas Messages. In the Queens Christmas Message of 1975 she states that we are like grains of sand on a balanced against lead. We are able to, like sand, gather and overbalance the lead.
a) The Coronation Oath is not in accordance with the Preamble to the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act July 1900 UK/PGA. (see s.2 and see s.3)
b) The Coronation Oath is not in accordance with the Schedule of the Constitution at Clause 9 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act July 1900 UK/PGA. (see s.4)
c) Oath is not in accordance with Proclaimed Styles and Titles (see s.11 & see s.12)
d) Oath is to Parliamentary Title April 1927 being United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and is not as proclaimed as at May 1927. (see s.12)
e) Elizabeth the Second takes Oath to separated Parliaments, Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Pakistan, and Ceylon.
Queen Elizabeth II has taken oath to govern the peoples of multiple realms at law post Imperial Conference 1926. We can prove this by the Shrine of Remembrance anchoring the Imperial Tudor Crown in Holy Ground in a Kings Domain in Melbourne in Victoria. A city named after Lord Melbourne in a State named after Queen Victoria. Lord Melbourne was the Queens most trusted advisor, almost her father as he had looked out for the Queen since her fathers death in her early years.
Queen Elizabeth II has taken Oath to Parliamentary Title and not to Royal Title. And the process in which this was done is not in accordance with the law and custom already defined. This introduces the St Edwards Crown, a Crown linked to Roman Catholic Rule in England taken from Edward the Confessor in 1102. This Crown and Realm has affected England on multiple occasions, the most famous being at the introduction of the Charter of Liberties or the Great Charter or Magna Carta in 1215, with the second being that of Oliver Cromwell 1659 leading to the Glorious Revolution 1688 that led to the Coronation Oaths Act 1688 in the first place.
We need to keep these actions in mind as we further discuss more facts. On the surface they are already questionable. But we need to define specifically why they are. This can only happen if we build up more facts to surmise from. We stick to the scientific method as we explained in Part 1 by posing questions at Constitutional Law that require answers. The only way to get those answers is to lay down the facts so as to be able to devise that summary and therefore answer the questions specifically and correctly.
As always. You can contribute in the comments below. Discuss these things with the people around you, and try and build awareness of the facts among your communities. A group think tank is the only way to be able to dispel myths from these facts and put a solid argument on the table as to what is actually going on.
Thankyou for the ongoing support that has allowed this to come to fruition in the first place. Without that support we would not be able to spend the time required to pose this to the courts of law within the Commonwealth of Australia on behalf of all of you.
Checkout our online store where you can purchase shirts to demonstrate your support. The funds received from the shirts all go towards travel, printing, filing and being able to stand up in those court rooms in the first place.
Eventually this work will be pointed towards a Federal Court in relation to Constitutional Matters core to all people in the Commonwealth of Australia and put on the table evidence that the court will need to address in the failure of the Governor General of Australia and Attorney General of Australia’s speaking up about it. Their silence has caused this action.
Have you been blocked by Big Tech recently like Steven was over six months ago. Checkout our Social Media related shirts at our store.