History from a different perspective - a 'Constitutional Sovereign' and the real truth about the Bill of Rights 1689.

One of the points that Sonia Bonici makes quite clear in the phone call made by Brian Gerrish is the fact she states quite adamantly that the Queen is only a ‘Constitutional Sovereign’. This is very interesting when you understand what a Constitutional Sovereign basically is and the limited role they actually play, as just a figure head, her role politically is simply to; guide, warn and be consulted, with absolutely ‘no’ power according to the Constitutional Law.

Considering all this, the fact still remains, that Constitutional Law cannot override Common law; so her Common Law powers would still most certainly remain including the power of dissolution. So the question begs; why won’t the Queen use them? Surely the Queen is aware of her Common Law powers. Or maybe the Queen has been fooled or coerced into this position? Or is the Queen simply compliant to all that is happening considering the real dynasty that she descends from? And why was this dynasty so important to Parliament? I think I might have found an explanation to answer these questions and the most important one; why the Queen is not acting?

The ‘Constitutional Sovereign’ foundation was first laid by the Act of Settlement 1701 which was over seen by William III following its creation by the Bill of Rights 1689. This document was created by its preamble document the Declaration of Rights 1688, supposedly wrote by the people, but in fact was wrote by parliament just before William III and Mary II took the throne. William and Mary took duel Monarchy of which had never happened before and has never happened since; so why a duel Monarchy? The excuse that has been given for this by historians is that William did not want to play second fiddle to his wife and that Mary did not want to upset her husband, but this occurrence in English Royal history still seems strange to me and needed deeper investigation, so after more delving I found something very interesting which I will share with you now.

Mary’s Dad James II was forced to give up the crown in the revolution of 1688 because he tried to get the people to follow his Roman Catholic faith; he was very unpopular for his persecution of the Protestants and as a rule the Stuarts had always tried to rule under Divine Rite without the need of parliament, which was declared under the Petition of Right 1628 at the time of Charles I (Mary’s Grand Father). Charles I, was executed during the English civil war which had started in 1642 and ended in 1651, this was when England became a ‘Republic’ for 11 years under Oliver Cromwell. But in 1660 Richard Cromwell; Oliver Cromwell’s son lost control of the country to Charles II.

I know the history can be boring but there is a very significant fact here; Parliament had control of this country for 11 years and then lost it, but I am sure they had a taste of what it was like to control this country under a parliamentary dictatorship and I feel they required that power back again, but they had a Stuart King standing in their way. So ultimately they had to no choice but to control the Stuart line if they were ever to gain back their Parliamentary dictatorship and I feel it had to be a Stuart line so they could use Scotland as a bargaining chip (modern day example of this is Blair’s 7.2 Billion pound bribe to Scotland over his term in office), to maintain the Stuarts as the only line to have succession to the throne (done by the Statute Law the Bill of Rights 1689) but I here you say ‘the succession went to the House of Hanover, then to Saxe Coburg Gotha' (AKA the Windsor’s). But did it? And in reality do we now simply have a compliant Stuart (Constitutional Sovereign) who happens to be the last Sovereign of this nation before the 2009 break down. Another fact that seems to escape everyone is; that if the throne could be occupied by a true English Monarch do you really think that Parliament could get away with what they are doing to this country and its people? I don’t think so!! So lets just say for one minute I am right in what I am suggesting, how did they possibly achieve this, sorry its back into history for a while, but it is worth it I think you will find.

In 1685 James II (younger brother of Charles II) took the throne and as I have already said was removed by the revolution of 1688 almost without doubt staged by Parliament using the catholic issues and stirring up hatred amongst the people to remove yet again another Stuart king who wanted to rule by divine right, however Parliament still needed a sovereign to keep the people happy so they asked William III and Mary II (first cousins as William’s mum was Mary Stuart daughter of Charles I and Mary’s Dad was the son of Charles I) But still the question begs; why the duel monarchy? (Putting to one side the historians view point)

After the Declaration of Rights was signed by William and Mary at there coronation, Parliament made a statute law based upon this document, but changed the words slightly (and if you have ever read the Bill of Rights it is very bias in favor of Parliament) this statute (that is still on the statute rolls to this day, even though it has mostly been repealed but not in its entirety because Parliament dare not to) the Bill of Rights 1689 has something very interesting in its title, that the Declaration Of Rights (its preamble document) did not have; An Act Declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Settling the Succession of the Crown. (The interesting part in bold) So why is this so important?

When William III and Mary II took the throne, the throne was still in the hands of the Stuarts (a Scottish Catholic Dynasty) Parliament needed to settle the succession to the crown to maintain a Stuart would always sit there, but on Parliament’s terms and not the Stuarts. So when Mary died in 1694 and William had the throne to himself until Mary’s Sister Anne took the throne from William in 1702, William and Parliament pushed through a statute law called the Act of Settlement in 1701 which clearly stated that the throne would have to go, in the event of Anne’s death (she being childless) to the nearest Protestant heir being Sophia of Hanover.

Anne I, had 17 children that all died and then Sophia of Hanover died before Anne, so the throne (crown) would then go to George I, Sophia’s son. Supposedly a Protestant heir to meet with William and Parliaments wishes under the Act of Settlement 1701, as historians will tell you William was a strict Protestant. So why would William have picked a Scottish Catholic Dynasty in the guise of a German Protestant Dynasty? Please allow me to explain.

Remember Parliament’s vested interest of maintaining a Stuart on the throne; well this is how they achieved it.

Sophia of Hanover was the daughter of Elizabeth of Bohemia, James I’s only daughter, thus Sophia was the Grand daughter of James I making her son George I, James I’s great grandson. James I, was the first Stuart Catholic King on the throne of England in 1603 and was also James VI of Scotland calling himself the first King of Great Britain (his own words), so thus George I, was of Stuart ‘decent’ that has been maintained right up to our present queen Elizabeth II.

Parliament achieved all they could wish for and by using the Bill of Rights 1689 and the Stuarts as the line maintained on the throne by this Statute, they laid the foundation for a ‘Constitutional Sovereign’ finally achieving their goal with George V (Our Queen’s Grandfather) who started the destruction of the Lords in 1911, finished off by Blair (born in Edinburgh) and the removal of the need for royal assent, put forward by Asquith and Lord Lore both educated at Balliol College Oxford founded by a Scottish King John Balliol in 1263, that resulted in a fully fledged ‘Constitutional Sovereign’, a figure head holding position as Sovereign of this country. And don’t you find it suspicious that the last part of the destruction of England is fore fronted by none other than Gordon Brown (Born in Glasgow) another Scottish Rite Scotsman.

Sonia Bonici quite clearly said...The Queen is a ‘Constitutional Sovereign’ she cannot intervene; she leaves it to her ministers…So now you can see why, for her only interest is Scotland, the place she prefers, out of any to be is; ‘Balmoral’, this is simply why Parliament needed a Stuart, for a true English monarch would not stand by and watch this happen and would have put an end to this long, long ago!

This article is in no way meant to be against the people of Scotland, for they are as much in the dark about these facts as we were, I personally have a lot of Scottish friends and hope to maintain them, but the truth must be known by all and this is just the beginning.

As many people know, who have wrote to the Queen including myself, all you will ever receive from Buckingham Palace is third party reply. Your letters are forwarded on to the Foreign and Common Wealth Office. (Common Wealth founded in 1649 while England was a republic under a Parliamentary Dictatorship) You can now understand why she will never reply and leaves it to her ministers to do so considering she simply is just a ‘Constitutional Sovereign’.

Maybe I am wrong, but if I am, why is the evidence starring me in the face to say I am not wrong? In the event I am right, I now understand why it was so important to invoke article 61 and enter into 'Lawful Rebellion' and why the words were so apt. For I have shown I have a loyalty to the throne of this country, a loyalty at the moment that could be construed as being miss-guided, for the evidence points to the wrong person being sat there, but nevertheless a loyalty that is un-divided, not to the person, but to the position that person holds, for England must stay a Sovereign nation in the proper sense of the word, with everyone having Personal Sovereignty, maintained by a true representative and not a ruler.

The Sovereign of this country should be a divine representative, something that no Sovereign of this country has ever been and if the Queen has no intention of being this, then the people of this country have a right to elect a new Sovereign, who will be the true divine representative, for no Sovereign of this country has ever had the right to rule and they must be bound by the same moral guidelines, that the people are bound by, with the simple conclusion that no one is above the law.

Now is the time for a true Law of this country, built upon moral values and not the Constitutional Statute Laws of control, greed and abuse made by the Parliament of this country for their 'city' bosses. Now is the time for the pomp and circumstance to go, for a Sovereign who is not paid anything because of who they are, but to place themselves in the hands of the people they represent, allowing the people to decide what kind of way of life they shall have, in respect of how well they represent them and defend them, to maintain that this situation we now find ourselves in, never happens again.

My next article soon will be exploring this matter in greater depth and giving a greater understanding of how Parliament has used ‘their’ Constitutional Law of this land to achieve their 'city' bosses desired goal and will relate to why article 61 of Magna Carta is so important and why a fully fledged ‘lawful Rebellion’ is the only true way to save this country.