So anyway, towards the end, William is there in the court with massive iron shackles all over him, and they tell him he is accused of Treason against Longshanks.
William responds : "At no time in my life have I ever sworn allegiance to Longshanks" (or something like that)
They respond : "It doesn't matter, he is your king."
The find him guilty of Treason and proceed to cut him into bits, he screams the word freedom and then a few minutes later the credits roll.
So what just happened there?
The Judge found that allegiance is owed to the king regardless of personal beliefs or oaths.
They justified that everyone automatically owes allegiance to the crown using the medieval thinking of good and evil, believing that since the crown is oath sworn to truth, justice, duty, honour etc etc, that it's good to support them in bringing forth those things and evil to oppose them.
So the judge guy probably actually believed William was an evil agent driven in his actions by the devil, and hence had no problem ordering his "purification" on the following day.
In modern times the notion of owed allegiance and duty to the monarch is still supposed, apparently there is still on the books laws about Treason. (See : the videos by Albert Burgess)
So we have a parliament, courts and police who are all acting together in order to enforce the legislations written by Parliament and signed into law by the Monarch, upon the general public, who are deemed to owe a duty of allegiance to the Monarch, and the Monarch's government.
This system has been in effect for hundreds and hundreds of years, the bones of the system date from early medieval times and have not changed at all.
MasterYoda wrote:Fossilised they are!
Then in 2001 something changed.
The Duke of Rutland, Viscount Masserene and Ferrard, Lord Hamilton of Dalzell and Lord Ashbourne were imbued with the spirit of the ancient Charter, thrust on King John in 1215. In accordance with the Charter's Clause 61, the famous enforcement clause, the four presented a vellum parchment at Buckingham Palace, declaring that the ancient rights and freedoms of the British people had to be defended.
The clause, one of the most important in the Charter, which was pressed on King John at Runnymede, allows subjects of the realm to present a quorum of 25 barons with a petition, which four of their number then have to take to the Monarch, who must accept it. It was last used in 1688 at the start of the Glorious Revolution.
The four peers, who were all thrown out of Parliament in November 1999, proved they had that quorum by presenting Sir Robin Janvrin, the Queen's private secretary, with the petition signed by 28 hereditaries and letters of support from another 60. In addition, they claim the support of thousands of members of the public.
They say that several articles in the Treaty of Nice agreed by Tony Blair in December will destroy fundamental British liberties. The Queen has 40 days to respond. Under the Magna Carta's provisions, if the Sovereign does not observe the Charter the people may rise up and wage war on her, seizing castles, lands and possessions until they have redress.
The barons judged that the laws of Europe are a direct threat to the rights and freedoms of the British people (including themselves), and so they enacted article 61 of the Magna Carta, and thus the Lawful Rebellion had officially started at the very highest levels.
Now coming back to the point about William Wallace and the owed duty of allegiance to the Monarch, it's quite clear that the Barons have changed the rules.
Clause 61 of the 1215 charter states: "The barons shall choose any twenty-five barons of the realm they wish, who with all their might are to observe, maintain and cause to be observed the peace and liberties which we have granted and confirmed to them by this our present charter". The clause goes on to say that if the king does not keep to the charter, the twenty five barons shall seize "castles, lands and possessions... until, in their judgement, amends have been made". "Anyone in the land" would be permitted by the king to swear an oath to the twenty five to obey them in these matters, and the king was in fact supposed to order people to do so even if they didn't want to swear an oath to the twenty five barons.
So now, duty is no longer owed to the Monarch, but in accordance with the Magna Carta, the very foundation of the concept of Duty to the Monarch, such duty and allegiance is now in fact owed the twenty five rebel barons.
Therefore, in accordance with history and tradition, the barons have effectively shot a cannon through the hull of parliament because when a member of the public is charged with violating a legislation written by parliament, it is no longer true that they are subject to that legislation because they are in fact no longer subject to the Monarch who the parliament, courts and police are acting in allegiance to.
This is why enacting article 61 is undermining the UK's integration with the EU, because as much as the EU has control over parliament via such things as the Lisbon Treaty, the law of the UK is now set such that Parliament no longer has unquestionable authority and jurisdiction over the people due to their owed allegiance to the Monarch
The big problem is the fact that either our judiciary are all pro-europe and willing to commit treason against the Barons (and therefore the people of this country) by continuing to perform their previous duties to the Monarch as if nothing has changed, OR, they are simply ignorant of the facts and thus are carrying on regardless of them.
To make the situation clearer if William had been stood there in his chains and said :
"I was doing my duty under the spirit of the Magna Carta in accordance with, and under the orders of the Barons"
He might well of not got "purified" the following day.
On the other hand maybe the judge would of just ruled him guilty anyway, that's the risk you take when you decide to stand up for what you believe is right, and that is the risk every hero real or fictional faces when they decide to resist tyranny.