18/04/2021

Steven Spiers

News, Media and Opinions

When we look at the history of Australia and its foundations based in the laws of the Motherland, we can see that the issuance of arms is formed under the jurisdiction of a court of the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.

The College of Arms forms the Court of Chivalry which oversees the issuance, usage and dishonour of the use of Arms and is overseen by a King of Arms.

Heraldry is the management of the display of pedigree and ancestry by the use of Flags and Coats-of-Arms. The modern use of Heraldry has existed since the High Middle Ages and in England around the time of the Battle of Hastings 1066 and subsequent St Edward the Confessor defining the St Edwards Crown.

The Papal Catholics had seen to expanding their horizons through Cristobel Columbus and expansions into the Southern Americas as well as throughout Europe. The Spanish Catholics had already established their presence throughout much of Central and Southern America and had now been given the Popes blessing to further their efforts.

Since the time of Henry II in the 1200’s we see the Magna Carta 1215 and 1225 established as Rule of Law with the Liberties of the Forest forming the Charter of the Forest 1225 that is to be read in conjunction with the Great Charter 1297. We can see how the people had stood up to establish rights within their body corporate vested in the King establishing rights that include living standards we define as customary to this day. Rights and Custom that all stem from the Charter of Liberties 1102.

We see the establishment of the Church of England and the foundation of the Imperial Crown in defiance of the Popes claim as Supreme Head of England in 1539 and the continuance of the College of Arms which was formerly established in 1484 under Richard III and was succeeded in battle by Henry VII in the War of the Roses that occurred between 1455 and 1487 whom introduced the Tudor Dynasty and the Imperial Tudor Crown.

The usage of Coats of Arms has existed since long before the middle ages, with its descriptions defined in the biblical texts setting up the credence for its existence in the first place. We see similar actions taken by tribal people who display cultural and customary headdress, colors, and identifying rank and pedigree in their chief and elders.

Numbers 1:4 Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
And with you there shall be a man of every tribe; every one head of the house of his fathers.

The Clan, Tribe, Family is identifiable through its Estates Coat of Arms, and through its Constitution in the Will of God establishes itself and identifies itself. This becomes Ancestry, Lineage, Pedigree, and its Patriarchal or Matriarchal rules defined in its creation. This customary rule set is honoured by the family, and upheld under a Common Law of Chivalry which is overseen by the Court of Constable and Marshall or the Court of Chivalry.

78. LAW OF HERALDRY
Heraldry is an ancient language and science regulated in the Commonwealth of Australia by a prerogative of the English monarch, which forms part of the law of the Commonwealth of Australia, and the State of Queensland, by virtue of the common law doctrine of reception, which has been codified in statute of the State of Queensland enacted by The Queen’s most excellent Majesty by and with the advice and consent of the Parliament of Queensland then assembled and by the authority of same in the Constitution Act 1867(Qld), and the  Imperial Acts Application Act 1984 (Qld.)

Their Majesties of the High Court of Chivalry of England and Wales is a civil court in England, which has an absolute jurisdiction, by prescription in matters of honour, pedigree, descent, and coat armour.  The court was last convened in 1954 in the matter of Manchester Corporation v Manchester Palace of Variety Ltd [1955] I AII ER 387.  This was the first time that the  Court of Chivalry had sat for approximately 200 years since 1732.  The opening part of the aforesaid judgement involved an analysis leading to the determination that the Court of Chivalry still exists.

Lord Goddard, C.J. said:
It is not contended that this court, however long a period may have elapsed since it last sat, is no longer known to the law.  It was originally the Court of Constable and Marshall and has probably existed since the Conquest.  At least it had been in existence for very many years before the reign of Richard II, who reigned from 1377 to 1399, and during his time the famous case of Scroop v Grosvernor was heard before it.

Lord Goddard, C.J’s remarks are relevant to the existence or non existence of a fact in issue in the case before the honourable court, having regard to relevant provisions of the Imperial Acts Application Acts 1984 (Qld), and otherwise under the Constitution of the State of Queensland, and the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia.

The legal fact that Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II can exercise an Imperial Prerogative in a State of the Commonwealth was confirmed in the House of Representatives [18971] (Cwlth) on 8 September 2003 by the Member for Wentworth at approximately 9.26pm. Mr. King said:

The present entirely unsatisfactory position is that Australian organizations and individuals must approach the College of Arms in London, which claims to have some imperial jurisdiction over Australia and Australians – the Court of the Lord Lyon in Edinburgh or the Chief Herald of Ireland for their needs.  Needless to say, the Commonwealth and States cannot make use of any of these foreign authorities should they wish to change the Commonwealth or State Arms.

There is also clear case law authority in Australia for the recognition of the prerogative right of the Imperial Crown over the printing and publication of statutes with an extent to which the prerogative right is enforceable in other jurisdictions and is clearly expressly reserved by s 8.A(1) of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cwlth) which states:

8A(1) Subject to sub-section (2), this Act does not affect any prerogative right or privilege of the Crown.

a) The Court of Chivalry oversees Heraldic Devices
b) The College of Arms oversees Australian Heraldic Devices
c) Australia has no College of Arms, Lord Lyon, or Ulster.
d) The Queen can exercise Royal Prerogative to exercise an Imperial Act
e) Australia must approach the College of Arms which has jurisdiction

We can see how the Court of Chivalry oversees Heraldic Devices and that this court within the College of Arms of Great Britain continues to oversee the Arms and Devices issued throughout Australia. The Commonwealth of Australia to this day has no King of Arms and Heralds to oversee Heraldic Devices and acts of Chivalry.

We can demonstrate that the former Colonies of Australia under the Constitutions Act 1850 the former State of New South Wales which had been defined by Charter on 25th October 1786 as the continent to the 135th parallel began to give up its claim to the bodies of people that had colonised the towns and cities that form those colonies.

By 1867 we can see that Victoria, Queensland, South Australia, and the Territory (which changes hands several times) are formed and given constitutional status as Crown Corporation Soles or Personages of the Queen.

The issuance of Badges, Coats of Arms, Flags, and other acts of Heraldry defining this separation and creation of the new followed as can be demonstrated by looking at the Parliament of the State history on the use of their Heraldry.

79. STATE BADGES AND COATS OF ARMS
Victoria
https://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/about/the-parliamentary-system/symbols

Parliament of Victoria Crest
The central part of the insignia consisting of shield, garter and crown is taken from Queen Victoria’s royal coat of arms : as Victoria was a Crown colony, the coat of arms was used on documents issued with the authority of the crown. All government departments are entitled to use this coat of arms.

The crown is known as “St Edwards Crown”, though it was made during the reign of Charles II to replace the coronation crown destroyed during the Commonwealth. It was the crown worn by Elizabeth II at her coronation and, at her request, is the crown used on all official designs.

… We can see by the Coat of Arms of Victoria registered within the National Archives displays the Imperial Crown in the paws of the Kangaroo displayed upon the torse. By the words of the Parliament of Victoria itself we can see that they make statement that the St Edwards Crown is defined by King Charles II who was Catholic during the time of his reign and define this link to the Commonwealth that was in power of Parliament during the time of Oliver Cromwell and the puritanism of the Church of England. This is then followed by the Glorious Revolution of William III of Orange ousting the Catholic King James II from Great Britain and establishing the Coronation Oath Act 1688 defining the Monarch as Protestant alone and defining the Charter of Right which we known statutorily as the Bill of Rights 1688.

Queensland
https://www.qld.gov.au/about/how-government-works/flags-emblems-icons/state-badge
The badge of Queensland developed from the need to include a seal or badge in the design of the state flag.

The badge was adopted as part of the state flag on 29 November 1876. It is officially described as “On a Roundel Argent a Maltese Cross Azure surmounted with a Royal Crown”. It was designed by William Hemmant, the then Queensland Colonial Secretary and Treasurer.

It is not known why this was chosen as a suitable badge. However, it is interesting to note that a Maltese Cross is the final stop on the legend band around the Great Seal of Queensland (1859). The Royal Crown also appears on this seal.

In 1893, the badge was incorporated into the Queensland Coat of Arms.

… The badge is defined by the Parliament of Queensland as being used as a Seal and Great Seal of the Colony in use since 1876 and that in 1893 it was then incorporated into the Coat of Arms of the Colony. A change to the Badge then occurs in 1954 introducing the St Edwards Crown at which like Victoria is linked to the Catholic reign of Charles I and II. The change to the Badge needs to be taken into consideration post Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act July 1900 UK/PGA and the defined Preamble and Oath of Allegiance and the Imperial Acts Application Acts of the States. This change then being linked to the Coat of Arms sees that change in the Coat of Arms take place as well.

The Royal Crown has been altered slightly since the badge was first adopted under Queen Victoria’s rule, as succeeding monarchs have preferred different interpretations of the Crown.

It was last altered in 1963, after Queen Elizabeth II decided to reproduce the Crown during her reign.

https://www.qld.gov.au/about/how-government-works/flags-emblems-icons/coat-of-arms
Queen Victoria granted the Queensland Coat of Arms, the oldest State Arms in Australia, to the Colony of Queensland in 1893.

The Coat of Arms symbolises the Queen’s constitutional authority in the state. They were the first Arms assigned to a British colony since Charles II granted Jamaica its Arms in 1661.

As of August 2012, the Queensland Coat of Arms has been used as the government’s corporate logo.

a) State of Victoria admits St Edwards Crown is linked to Catholic King Charles II
b) State of Queensland believes it is a slight alteration, yet is defining a different Crown Head.
c) State of Victoria and State of Queensland removed the Imperial Crown defining the Realm.
d) State of Queensland states the Coat of Arms is their Corporate Logo.

What we can see is that the issuance of Arms, Flags, Badges and other Heraldic Devices fall under the jurisdiction of the Court of Chivalry, and that in its usage in 1954, the Court of Chivalry although infrequently used forms the established jurisdiction of matters involving the usage of Heraldry. This establishes the Art of Heraldry and the usage of Heraldic Devices as an ancient law of the family by the usage of arms in representation of the family estate.

Through a few small quotes from the established Parliament of the day in the State of Victoria and the State of Queensland we can demonstrate that the St Edwards Crown is linked to Catholic Monarch King Charles II, and its usage in 1954 goes against the Coronation Oath Act 1688 and Bill of Rights 1688 defining the limitations of the Office of Monarch.

Australia has no Court of Chivalry, Australian and its States Arms are issued by the College of Arms. It has also been demonstrated that the Queen can flex her Imperial Prerogative within the Commonwealth of Australia by way of comments made in the Parliament of Australia. We can easily deduce from this that the Court of Chivalry oversees by jurisdiction the Law of Arms which is defined as an Ancient Law.

We have the State of Queensland admitting to its usage of its Coat of Arms being a Corporate Logo although displaying Heraldic Crown Device being St Edwards Crown on that Logo going against the Law of Arms by its admittance in a “slight” alteration. Slight of hand is more the term to be used when you are discussing the Heraldry of a Supreme Head of Authority that therein establishes a Line of Authority and therefore Rule of Law that includes the Law of Arms overseen by the Court of Chivalry.

We can also deduce from this that as by title claim the Queen is Queen of Australia at which the States are defined as being in line of authority as per the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act July 1900 UK/PGA at Clause 5 and a question of being in a conflict of interest or outside of law. This question is then doubled with the question in regards to being Supreme Head to multiple Corporation Soles and the usage of Heraldic Devices amongst them and opens up to the questions relative to the International Law and Humanitarian Law.

Daniel 3:4-5 Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
Then an herald cried aloud, To you it is commanded, O people, nations, and languages, that at what time ye hear the sound of the cornet, flute, harp, sackbut, psaltery, dulcimer, and all kinds of musick, ye fall down and worship the golden image that Nebuchadnezzar the king hath set up:

What we can ultimately perceive from all of this is that there is a jurisdiction of law at which is linked by acts of chivalry to the realm and crown and that the College of Arms has managed the Court for over 500 years.

A difficult language to decipher, the use of symbols or images on Coats of Arms falls into strict categories and definitions. The Art of Heraldry sees many people doing their family histories and family trees defining their ancestry and lineage within the law of arms. Many researchers are unaware of the significance of the usage of Arms and how they fall under the Law of Arms which itself falls under a Royal and Supreme Head and its Line of Authority.

Rule of Law and the Law of Arms are branches of the same tree which we call the Commonwealth of Australia planted and established to bring forth good fruits from its garden at which man was placed in the image of God.

From this we can see that the usage of arms has been practiced for centuries, and that its very own providence established the right to rule over a case in 1954 in relation to the usage of arms. We can also see that it forms part of the foundation of law and that its relevance to the questions at hand are indisputable.

This opens the door for many questions including but not limited to the changes made to the State Badges and Coat of Arms along with the changes made in the introduction of “Australia” in 1973 under the Great Seal of Australia a seal displaying Heraldic Device issued under Royal Charter in 1912 and itself coming under the Law of Arms.

An in depth topic to fall into the Art of Heraldry and the Law of Arms forms a pivotal role in defining through the Law of Arms what is represented by the Heraldic Device displayed. This becomes the art form of showing thoughts, emotions, temporal links, spiritual links, and demonstrates a way of speaking without the power of the mouth and instead with the eyes.

Last note that should be expressed is that at the true Law of Arms, establishing the right of sole, and acting in sole, comes along with the responsibility of acting with honour. It is therein that our links to what was Granted by God are found. It becomes a disgrace and dishonour to use someone else’s Coat of Arms or attempt to bring someone into disrepute through the use of arms. We can see this on the international stage wherein these countries and nations display a right to bare arms, a right confirmed by Charter of Right 1688 and in modern times as well by established Human Rights.

Daniel 6:17 Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
17 And a stone was brought, and laid upon the mouth of the den; and the king sealed it with his own signet, and with the signet of his lords; that the purpose might not be changed concerning Daniel.

We therefore now conclude that there is more to the equation than established case law and precedence.

The use of heraldry is defined in the biblical text, and the use of ensigns, standards and flags also been detailed in the scripture. We can also see through the scripture that the use of a ring or signet represents the ability to seal laws within the body corporate of the corporation sole represented.

Isaiah 5:26 Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
26 And he will lift up an ensign to the nations from far,
and will hiss unto them from the end of the earth:
and, behold, they shall come with speed swiftly:

Jeremiah 4:21 Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
21 How long shall I see the standard,
and hear the sound of the trumpet?

Along with these links, we can define the scripture to be more relevant to the problem at hand than many would take credit to believe and that the judicial branches are linked in kind with the branches of chivalry. This opens up a book of knowledge and also a plethora of questions when the use of arms is concerned that even judicial officers lack awareness of.

You can now start to see that there is a bed of knowledge that is untapped by the greater community as they fumble through rule of law without being able to establish the foundation of that rule through a line of authority that biblically speaking is in Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

Deuteronomy 6:10 Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
10 And it shall be, when the Lord thy God shall have brought thee into the land which he sware unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give thee great and goodly cities, which thou buildedst not,

Practically we try and deduce for ourselves the line of authority established in the creation and establishment of the Commonwealth of Australia and the changes since that creation.



Visits: 1276

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © All rights reserved. | Newsphere by AF themes.