Whereas the evidence below provides good reason to suggest that Elizabeth Windsor has little choice in what she says and does, and that under Common law we must presume innocence before guilt, the question can only go unanswered or we will fall foul to hearsay.
There are plenty of people who dislike the monarchy because of her affiliations and alleged practices, there has been an ongoing campaign against the Royals as the NWO must remove them and 1000 years of our heritage, so much has been stated about Elizabeth II that may not be correct, but even if some of it is true, and she has done terrible things, are they of her own free will?…can anything that she has done, or has been accused of doing be said to have been done with ‘malice aforethought’ (criminal intent)? The answer to this by any truly honest man or woman has to be a resounding no. We cannot decide the facts without all of the facts being available, simple.
There has been some indication that she has attempted to show signs of duress or distress, or are they just signs that she has done deceptively to portray that she is under duress in order to protect herself?…its not possible to reach a conclusion in truth. When the barons petitioned her on the 7th of February 2001 to withhold ratification of the treaty of Nice by using Article 61 (security clause) of Magna Carta 1215, she could have ignored it, or replied stating that it had been repealed and is not legitimate now, she did neither of those things and replied stating that she is under instruction from parliament (paraphrasing).
When Addressing the Australian people by letter on the Magna Carta’s 800th anniversary in 2015 she stated that;
“The story of the British monarchy is intertwined with that of Runnymede and Magna Carta. The values of Magna Carta are not just important to the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth, but across the world. Its principles are significant and enduring.”
After Princess Diana was allegedly murdered she spoke of “dark forces” being at play. So I leave the question in the air, but we should all know that the complete destruction of the monarchy is desired by the EU and UN in order to destroy the peoples sovereignty and, that the Christian faith is also set to be totally destroyed so that the despotic Catholic faith can rule without competition if we allow it.]
[Please read this essential expose of historical events of the reassertion of the Coronation Oath leading to its usurpation in 1685, and how Catholicism has continually attempted to overthrow our rights and freedoms and, also to put things fully into perspective with what is really happening today and why.
The evidence which clearly proves that Elizabeth Mountbatten inherited an already overthrown office of Sovereign, can clearly be seen below by observing the changes made (by usurping dark forces) to the Coronation Oath from 1688 onward.]
The Coronation Oath was first written down by Henry I in 1100 AD. The Coronation Oath can only be sworn to be upheld by a King or Queen of the Christian Anglican or protestant faith;
Anglicanism:- ‘a Western Christian tradition which has developed from the practices, liturgy, and identity of the Church of England following the English Reformation;’
Protestant:-’ a member or follower of any of the Western Christian Churches that are separate from the Roman Catholic Church in accordance with the principles of the Reformation, including the Baptist, Presbyterian, and Lutheran Churches ‘.
In 1685 “King” James “II”, whom himself was a Catholic and subservient unto Rome (Pope Innocent XI), could not lawfully take the Oath but he was clearly able to do so and evidently did! Hence the first time the Coronation Oath had been covertly usurped.
Therefore under that falsely sworn Oath unto God and to the people of the realm James II never truly was the King. The plot thickens after he fled to France only three years later to make way for the ‘invited’ Dutch couple prince William and princess Mary of Orange in 1688 when the Coronation Oath “Act” was introduced by the usurping forces….the so called ‘Glorious Revolution’ was only “Glorious” for treasonably dark forces behind the scenes. The Crown of England was fully usurped in 1688 and has been held by covert means ever since.
A sworn Oath or treaty made by the King/Queen to the people unto God are binding to all future heirs and successor’s in perpetuity, unless or until the people decide otherwise.
The true Coronation Oath has simply been reasserted ever since before Henry 1st Reign in 1100 – 1135 and up until 1685. Henry 1st’s simple Oath to the people merely reasserted the laws of the Protestant church again (10 commandments), which he swore to uphold and did so after his predecessors had ruled by the ‘Divine Right of kings’ (unjustly).
The Coronation Oath in 1688 became an Act of parliament for the first time in its history, and was thus repealable by parliament, and, whereas ‘no parliament can bind its successors’ it could not be safely held in perpetuity by parliament. It remains on the Statute books stll to this day by deception and by treasonous means.
For the sworn Oath of a King unto God and to the people’s laws and customs, to be ‘loosely’ held in trust by parliament was a breach of the separation of powers and, the Crowns entrusted sovereign duties under said Oath. Therefore the Coronation Oath could not be lawfully established as an Act of parliament.
It is contradictory to the fact that the reaffirmations of the Coronation Oath stated by monarchs for centuries, whom had always sworn unto God to uphold the laws and customs of the people, were then changed in 1688 to swear an Oath unto God to uphold the “Statutes in parliament”. This is why the deceptive notion that parliamentary Sovereignty exists today.
The natural laws or principles of the Bible are what the Common law constitution (Magna Carta 1215 and the Coronation Oath) was modelled upon. King Charles II, whom became King in 1661 was the last Constitutional monarch in England, however that’s not to say he wasn’t complicit in committing unconstitutional actions or omissions, we have had a history full of treacherous monarchs, everyone of them since 1685 have evidently fallen under the same category.
So, Rome had done it again! The fear based and strict rule of Catholicism was back at the head of the Christian church. The good book of the decent and just common law principles (Bible – 10 commandments), has since become under threat of Catholicism yet again seeking to instil its control based book of fear and law, which has become an extremely common theme all throughout our ancient history.
King Henry VIII, whom had forcibly removed the Catholics from the English Church and sacked their Abbeys and monasteries, had also introduced the Chritain Anglican faith after he became king between 1509 until his death in 1547 when Edward VI claimed the throne, until his death in 1553.
Lady Jane Grey was proclaimed Queen by her father-in-law the Duke of Northumberland. After nine days, (Bloody) Mary arrived in London, Lady Jane Grey was arrested and Mary was crowned “Queen” at the head of the English church.
“Queen of England” from 1553 until 1558. She was the eldest daughter of Henry VIII by Catherine of Aragón. When Edward VI died, Mary secured the crown without difficulty in spite of the conspiracy to substitute Lady Jane Grey. In 1554 Mary married Philip II of Spain, and as a devout Roman Catholic obtained the restoration of papal supremacy and sanctioned the persecution of Protestants.
In 1208 Pope Innocent III laid a general interdict on England and Wales. Since Popes under Rome have been ongoing since 33 AD the same fight which goes right back through ancient times is still being fought today.
From 1208 and the intrusion of the ‘general interdict’ on England and Wales, then later followed by the Treaty of Verona in 1213, whereby King John attempted (yet again) to bring England under Papist rule, although he was curtailed by the barons in 1215 whom by threat of force, demanded that he seal the Great Charter of 1215 or lose the throne. He was a traitor and a tyrant, and of course under duress when he sealed the Charter, his choice was either to lose the crown or the ‘divine right of kings’ – to terrorize the people without retribution.
King John attempted unsuccessfully yet again to allow Pope Innocent III to annul Magna Carta in 1216. Whereas he was brought under the Rule of law of Magna Carta by the feudal barons (his peers), whom refused to allow such treachery, and would not allow payment of tributes to the Pope, nor did they allow the Popes choice of Archbishop of Canterbury to head the English Church his attempt was unsuccessful.
King Alfred the Great back in 871 until his death in 899 became the King of Wessex following the death of his brother Aethelred. King Alfred also sent Pope John VIII packing after he wrote to King Alfred warning him of the consequences of impunging on the authority of the ‘see of Canterbury’. King Alfred did not Kow-tow to Pope John III’s rule, he would not accept the Pope’s appointment as King of Wessex, he refused to pay tribute and stated that the throne of England was only subject to the peoples election of the King, and not that of Rome.
So the history of the Papacy’s attempts to usurp the English throne and religion has been a very long one indeed. Since 1685 and to the present day the (un)holy Roman Empire has succeeded to deceive the people of England, and again today the deception continues whilst the people are misdirected by Brexit, and the despotic Roman rules of the European Union are close to completing their ancient quest to destroy the English Church and the Constitutional law devised from it.
The English ancient monarchy is set to be destroyed by deception and High Treason. Elizabeth “II” having been born into the plot, and possibly mind controlled or forced by fear to comply with what parliament instructs her to say and do, may well be under duress or be up to her neck in it, it is not possible to tell at this time. Under Common law we have to presume innocence until proven guilty, therefore we have to assume that she opposes the Treason being committed today, and from the signs she has provided I would say that she does.
If you have read this expose to the end then thank you. Please attempt to show others what is actually occurring so that we may save our Sovereignty and rights under our common law trial by jury Constitution whilst we still can.
David Robinson 2019-09-09
Comments:
Albert Burgess
Queen Elizabeth II is a victim and its provable.
Danielle Delioness
She didn’t want to take the throne.
Fisherman Emoven
All the millions of people who’s natural wealth has been stolen from them by Rio Tinto, and all the other raping buisness she is involved with. 😡
Phil Nobbs
She’s up to her neck in filth of her own making.
Fisherman Emoven
http://namastepublishing.co.uk/british-monarch-the-queen…/
British Monarch – the Queen in Depleted Uranium Trade | Namaste Publishing UK
NAMASTEPUBLISHING.CO.UK
Albert Burgess
In November 2014, Cameron announced the Queen cannot go anywhere or say anything in public he has not first approved that gives her less rights than you. You can malign her with complete freedom whilst she is a virtuakl prisoner of government. As to her investments she does not personnally make them her brokers appointed by government do. As for stealing her wealth that is nonsense when we elected our first Kings the people themselves decided the King must be visibly higher than his subjects so they gave him 6 times the land and money of the richest man. The proviso being the profits from the land had to be used to fund the office of the Crown after that any money was his to do what he liked with. Every King/Queen since George III has donated the profit to the exchequer getting back 15G% to pay for running the office of the Crown. In 2015 the Queen donated £375 000 000 to the excheuer she recieved back £40,000 000 giving you £335 000 000 I would rather you just said thank you Mam. The profits from the Crown estates are hers after the running expences but our forefathers made another rule the King/Queen cannot give anything else away because tyhat would diminish the office of the Crown she only holds the property of the Crown in trust for those who follow on. you obviously have no idea what you are talking about so please be quite until you do.
Phil Nobbs
Do you believe she had nothing to do with the death of Diana? And why was she so pally with Saville and other known pedos?
Fisherman Emoven
You can write in her defence as much as you like Albert. It does not change the fact that the majority of people would find it disgusting she has anything to do with destructive industry, but as always its always about the the fuckin money, shity of London criminals.
Albert Burgess
Of course she did not. Neither did Philip. In fact, a letter from Philip to Diana has recently surfaced in which he tells her Charles is a bloody fool over Camila and Diana has his full support.
Albert Burgess
Where do you get your figures? Opinion polls give at least 80% approval of the Queen. My comments are the result of a considerable amount of historical research into the origins of the Crown unlike your anarchist dreams.
Fisherman Emoven
You keep defending the status quo. Are you blind to the chaos that is all around? What about the treason of the 1911 parliament act? What is Royalty if it’s not false idols?
Fisherman Emoven
If as you say that Camaron’s government restricted her role, why did she not ask of the barons their help? She would have fully understood their demands about sovereignty.
Albert Burgess
What chaos? The only chaos is from anarchists trying to wreck everything. Until fifteen years ago, when I started talking about treason, no one was talking treason. Now, every one is talking it. Though, to the vast majority, treason is just an ‘in’ word. They have no idea what constitutes treason. It was me that first mentioned the Parliament Acts and the House of Lords act were treason contrary to section 3 of the 1848 Treason Felony Act.
Albert Burgess
I did not say Cameron’s government restricted the roll. That was done by Asquith, a Fabian, in 1911 when he stole the prerogative from George V.
Phil Nobbs
Recognising that the Queen is descended from a long bloodline of ‘rulers’ who have sought to control and enslave humanity, and she has continued that tradition, is not anarchism. It’s common sense and is provable.
Albert Burgess
That is arrant nonsense when we have had a bad King he has been removed normally by killing him. On the whole, our Kings have been good for us.
Albert Burgess
On the whole, we have a fair and just society.
Kiel Davis
You say we have a fair and just society yet I’m proof we don’t. At 11 years old I was out on streets. Social and police put me in a secure unit for my safety. Then at 13, I was left on streets collecting dinner money from social service door. How is that fair or just. I’m not the only one to suffer under this system. Many more are still suffering in a lot worse ways than i have and its gov doing it
Danielle Delioness
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-xGM6hzeWk
Albert Burgess
A Case for Treason Part 1/4
Fisherman Emoven
Our judiciary is corrupted to. Is that not why you left BAR private coroporation adminstering in de-facto courts of law by zionist infiltators, all about the kin money not law and justice.
Phil Nobbs
Do you not know she is descended from Vlad the impaler Tepes? Prince Charles has been very public about it and has even expressed his pride in it. (Ed: Nobody is responsible for the actions of their ancestors.)
Silva Lloyd
Maybe you could explain your findings in a more detailed manner so we can see your perspective a little better? I do think there’s something to what you’re saying but it doesn’t change that we are being led by traitors. If our Monarch is their prisoner, as you say, doesn’t that make it the army’s job to go free her? What is the solution to this?
John Bernard
“The Coronation Oath in 1688 became an Act of parliament for the first time in its history, and was thus repealable by parliament, and, whereas ‘no parliament can bind its successors’, it could not be safely held in perpetuity by parliament. It remains on the Statute books still to this day by deception and by treasonous means…”. I disagree, this is the wording of the Coronation Oath Act 1689: ” Will You solemnely Promise and Sweare to Governe the People of this Kingdome of England and the Dominions thereto belonging according to the Statutes in Parlyament Agreed on and the Laws and Customs of the same?…”. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/…/Willan…/1/6/section/III
Note the word “and” before “Laws and customs”. A Sovereign cannot give Royal Assent to an Act of Parliament which infringes our laws and customs.
Coronation Oath Act 1688
LEGISLATION.GOV.UK
Albert Burgess
This is the oath taken by Queen Elizabeth II. NOT A WORD ABOUT STATUTES
• The Queen’s Coronation Oath, 1953
MENU…See More
Albert Burgess
She did not take the oath from the 1688 Act.
Silva Lloyd
That oath still says she has to uphold our law and customs. Our constitution is exactly that. So why isn’t she doing that?
Albert Burgess
Lloyd Asquith, a Fabian prime minister, stole the prerogative from her grandfather. From 12 to 22, she was taught constitution by Sir Henry Marten, a Fabian. She was taught the constitution. As professor Dicey put it in his book of constitutional law in…See More
Silva Lloyd
Do you not think her response within the time limit of the declaration of article 61 was a method of giving her subjects a way of lawfully helping her out of that situation? I can’t imagine she is a simpleton. It would make sense if she saw through that deception, wouldn’t it?
John Bernard
The Magna Carta Society were talking of treason by the establishment in 1997. And doing something about it.
John Bernard
If The Queen made a public announcement that called upon the people to arrest the traitors that would be the end of the problem. But she never has.
John Bernard
“She did not take the oath from the 1688 Act…”. Quite so, but that infringement does not mean that she is not accountable to the Coronation Oath Act 1688. It means that she is not the Sovereign. You cannot have it both ways.
This principle is based on what is required of all loyal subjects when a Barons Committee has ruled against an errant purported Sovereign, what is commonly known as lawful rebellion.
Crown and Parliament Recognition Act 1689
LEGISLATION.GOV.UK
John Bernard
“When we have had a bad King, he has been removed normally by killing him…”. Quite right. These passages from Blackstone confirm that the settlement of The Crown on the present line was lawful, despite failures by the present regime,…See More
Legislation.gov.uk
Damian Judge
Hello Have you heard of the missing orphans that went for a day out with the Queen and Philip on royal visit to OZ in the 1950s?
Nigel Flex
Wasn’t there missing children on the Royal visit to Canada too
Nigel Flex
http://whale.to/c/queen_elizabeth_found_guilty.htmlWHALE.TO
QUEEN ELIZABETH FOUND GUILTY IN MISSING CHILDREN CASE – WHISTLE BLOWERS INCARCERATED
John Bernard
“Whereas the evidence below provides good reason to suggest that Elizabeth Windsor has little choice in what she says and does, and that under Common law we must presume innocence before guilt, the question can only go unanswered or we will fall foul to hearsay…”.
I disagree. Duress of circumstances to a Sovereign or anyone else is no defence against a charge of treason and ignorance of the criminal law is no excuse. The purpose of the coronation ceremony is to remove all excuses from the candidate before thousands of witnesses: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEDp34MRI20
The Coronation Of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth – Part 1 (1953)
Gail Warwick
Maybe someone could please explain the following: (taken from the Coronation) I presume in connection with Municipal (Pope) and Territorial (Queen – Commonwealth on behalf of Pope) governments: …”And I believe one Catholick and Apostolick Church” an…See More
Al Dalton
I was sent this but wonder if anyone else has seen it—-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HS2zM7e1PMA…
‘Queen’ Elisabeth II daughter of Winston Churchill by artificial insemination
Marcus Nicolas Flint
https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/…/Letter_before…
Nigel Flex
The royals have been villains for 100 of yrs you have only to look up the opium wars in history they were biggest drug dealers of all time
Liam Hassett
England… best in the world!
