The National Church is challenged over Charles lll

Posted byiainlawson27Posted inUncategorizedTags:, , ,

This is the letter I sent to the Moderator of the Church of Scotland on the date shown. I had hoped to publish both this letter and any reply but regretfully no answer has thus far been received and I am concerned, given the topic involved, that officialdom may prefer to ignore rather than replying and becoming possibly embroiled in constitutional matters. My problem with such a tactic is that it allows the illegal and fraudulent theft of Scotland’s assets to continue unchallenged yet again. Therefore I decided to publish my letter now and will of course publish any reply from the Church if it ever arrives before the ceremony on the 5th July 2023. In the past the Church of Scotland did take a lead in defending Scotland’s Constitution. I for one would welcome them doing so again.


12th June 2023.

Rt Rev Sally Foster-Fulton

The Moderator of the Church of Scotland

121 George Street,

Edinburgh EH2 4YN.

Dear Madam

I write in connection to the announced plan to use the Honours of Scotland in a follow up connection with the ascension of Charles 111 to the English Throne earlier this year.

To my knowledge King Charles has not taken the Scottish Coronation oath. He pledged only to a small excerpt of the 1689 Claim of Right so is a long way short of being considered as King of Scots.

As you will be fully aware the Union of the Crowns in 1603 is a myth. What in fact occurred was that one Monarch, the King of Scots also became Monarch of England at the same time. In other words he became a King with two Crowns, that were never United. Ever since every effort has been made to disguise this fact and Charles visit to Edinburgh is just the latest episode in this sorry tale.

The 5th July event will try to convey that King Charles III of England is already King of Scotland, but he can’t be for two reasons. 

First, there has never been nor can there be a “King of Scotland” because the People, not a monarch, are sovereign. Second, Charles III can’t become King of Scots without taking the Scottish Oath, referenced in the 1689 Claim of Right and required by Scots law for a legitimate monarch.

That oath binds him to uphold and never transfer or undermine the rights, rents and privileges of the Scottish Crown. The Scottish Crown is different from the English. It represents the sovereignty of the People of Scotland. Rather than the People swearing fealty to him as under the English Crown, he must swear it to the People. 

My late father, who was a minister in the Church of Scotland himself , educated me on these matters and he was intensely proud of the Kirk’s role in defending Scotland’s best interests during those troubling and difficult times.

I am writing to you seeking your assurance that while I fully expect Charles 111 to be treated with all respect, as should every foreign visitor, no suggestion should be made that he is the duly constituted King of Scots until he has taken the Scottish Coronation Oath and that while he may view the Honours of Scotland he holds no right to assume ownership of them.

I hope and fully expect it will be possible for the Church of Scotland to host this event in a manner that protects and enhances the sovereignty of the Scottish People rather than as a party in a fraud that has gone on for centuries and is responsible for the wholesale rape of Scotland’s assets to the great detriment of the Scottish People.

Yours sincerely

Iain M Lawson

Chair

Scottish National Congress Steering Committee


BEAT THE CENSORS

Sadly some websites seek to censor what their readers have access to read. This is particularly true of sites whose existence is primarily to support the views of one particular party and they seek to block articles which do not slavishly support that particular doctrine. My readers have worked out that the best way to defeat that attack on the freedom of speech and thought is to share my articles widely, thus defeating any attempt at censorship. My thanks for this.

SALVO AND LIBERATION

Are playing a crucial role in taking Independence forward. This site limits donations to Yours for Scotland to a maximum of £3. We do not need more as all we seek to do is to cover the costs incurred in running the blog therefore once this is secured each year all further donations are forwarded to Salvo and Liberation. My thanks for all who choose to support us in this way. It is appreciated.

SALVO MERCHANDISE

https://www.ebay.co.uk/str/salvoscot

43 thoughts on “The National Church is challenged over Charles lll”

  1. Well written, Sir.

    The Moderator of the Church of Scotland is an important ‘civic leader’. As in the past our National Movement needs to engage them.

    Bravo.

    Liked by 11 people

    1. Excellent letter, Iain, and disappointing that no reply has been forthcoming.particularly given the fact that the CofS enjoys protection under the 1707 Treaty, A later comment points out that the CofS, like Charles who swore to a part of the Claim of right , though not the whole , neither he nor the CofS can have it both watys.
      Unfortunately the CofS defected during the 1843disruption, leaving it to the group of ministers of the church who left it and their livings on the moral point of local landowners being given the right to choose Parish ministers, an early example of breaking terms of the 1707 Treaty by the British Government in London. At a time when they are losing members, surely Cof S should bemindful of their past inheritance.
      Please forgive a possibly unnecessary comment here but doing that seems to be the only way I can ‘like’ other comments as even logging into the website currently does not let me do that. i know others have had this problem.

      Liked by 12 people

  3. So, we know that Charles Windsor is not King of Scots and can never been King of Scotland or King of the United Kingdom because neither of those two titles has ever existed.

    However, he will still arrive in Edinburgh with all the false pomp and ceremony that will have the Scottish people paying for it all, despite the fact that the monarchy would not exist if Scotland was independent and he holds no official regnal position in the sovereign Nation of Scotland.

    As he is not King of Scots and clearly has no intention of becoming so, he does not need to uphold the Claim of Right in full, or at all.

    Iain’s letter to the Moderator puts the Church of Scotland in a difficult position but it is one of their own making. The C of S must know that Charles Windsor is not King of Scots and yet they have gone along with this charade and with no response so far from the Moderator it appears they will continue to do so by ignoring the letter.

    However, the issue is not going away any time soon, or at all for that matter. The position of the C of S is protected by the Claim of Right and they have been happy for centuries to keep that protection, but as with Charles Windsor, they cannot pick and choose which parts of the Claim of Right they will uphold.

    A day of reckoning will surely come to those individuals and organisations that have abused their positions held solely by the authority provided to them by the people of Scotland.

    Liked by 18 people

  5. That was a good letter – courteous and respectful, without missing the point in the slightest. Mind you, I did allow myself a wry smile at the “As you will be fully aware…”
    I do hope they have the decency to reply.

    Liked by 14 people

  6. Excellent letter, Iain! Perhaps we here should write our own equivalents, adopting the same tone and message too, just to reinforce the points you made.

    Liked by 11 people

  7. The church, unionists or patriots this is the question. This is an opportunity for the church to make itself relevant in Scotland or irrelevant as the case may be. As the Bruce would have said “you are for us or you are against us! You can’t have your feet in both camps”. Excellent thank you Iain

    Liked by 13 people

  8. Wealth is power, and our wealth as a nation has been constantly filched away to enhance the power and control of others over us. Your argument though unassailable, is dependant on the integrity of the law, which in turn has been continually eroded by the Westminster mafia and their media accomplices. Now even our own church declines to defend the truth, just as the establishment and legislature have before them. And now that the SNP has also been seduced, we have to re-group and start again. I was hoping Alba would become a key player in this regard.

    Liked by 11 people

  9. I am as Burns describes, ‘ an Atheist clean’. and perhaps too dismissive of the power or influence that faith communities might have. The pen may not be mightier than the sword these days but your letter is well writ and to the point.. It deserves a response, and whether or not it gets one, it’s on record and in the public domain. Thank you for sharing it.

    Liked by 14 people

  11. I really hope that none of our elected representatives who talk the talk about Independence while doing little, will not show up at this farce, though i will not be surprised if the current FM and others tun up. The Unionist ones , whose parties are controlled from London will be there, as expected, of course and by doing so, show us where their loyalties lie.

    Liked by 8 people

  15. Excellent letter, Iain. The Kirk is the Scottish established church, and its position is enshrined in the Treaty of Union of which the CoR was an integral part. It was not only protected as the established religion and kirk, but was also so, in law – Scots Law. If every other Article is no longer extant, and the Treaty no longer extant, can someone please explain why the Kirk continues as the established religion, even if it is now a mere shadow of its former self?

    This is where the humbug about the Treaty’s and CoR’s demise falls down, flat on its face. No Treaty, no Union. No Union, no protected arms of the state carried into the Union. No Treaty, no Scots Law. No Treaty, no Cor. No Cor, no Treaty. The independence movement needs to commission a couple of top-of-the-range constitutional lawyers to argue our case – not SNP poodles, but people willing to speak truth to power. Probably retired ones would be most suitable (no career to lose) or ones who have been willing to stand up before and not been daunted. They used to exist, but, perhaps, like so many of our politicians and civic and business leaders, they, too, have morphed into invertebrates?

    Liked by 11 people

    1. Read it. Graeme is unfortunately pissing in the wind. Also L Riddoch is not a native Scot and just makes noise about Land Reform!!! All hot air which is useless<

      Like

  18. Ref:- Charles 111 King of England.
    Dear Rev Foster Fulton,
    I write to voice my concern that the ENGLISH KING will use The Honours of Scotland in a fraudulent attempt to pretend he is King of Scotland and con the Scottish people to whom he has not taken the Scots Coronation OATH.
    The Crowns of Scotland and England were NEVER united and remain Two distinct crowns.
    As you should be aware there Can not be a KING of Scotland because the people and not the Monarch are Sovereign in this country.
    Until he swears allegiance to the Scots people, he has no right to claim ownership of our Scottish Honours.
    I hope he will be treated with respect, even though he is trying to continue this fraud, but it will be made clear that until he take the Scottish Oath he is not King of Scots and he cannot be King of Scotland as this title does not and never has existed.

    Yours sincerely

    Feel free to use

    Liked by 8 people

  19. Well done Iain.

    Given that religion was such a hot topic during the SNP leadership campaign, I am sure that the ‘Scottish’ dead tree press will be all over this.

    NOT

    Liked by 2 people

  21. Excellent letter Iain, very informative and straight to the point, I wouldn’t hold my breath on getting a reply to it, simply because your missive cannot be deconstructed and shotdown.

    I despise a foreign monarch coming to Scotland to pretend that they are the king of Scots, I despise even more those House Jocks that are enabling this to happen.

    Liked by 5 people

  22. I love it but I suspect the independence of the Church of Scotland in such matters is long compromised. He who believes in false kings believes in the false God, the Anglophone colonial establishment are rife in the Church. Religion is a bastion of Unionism and an enabler to the great deception of the Scottish indigenous population. I will be interested in the reply Ian gets but 10 out of 10 to Ian for challenging the pillars of Unionism from a different angle, legally they could be shamed, and look foolish but to me the church is as guilty of complacency as the SNP quisling administration. In a country where many of the Churches parishioners go cold , hungry and children are impoverished through design of the UK,Ok state.
    Where is the Churches voice in the condemnation of our treatment.

    Liked by 5 people

    1. Sadly, the CoS seems nowadays mainly a place for the bourgeoisie to rest its conscience, the mass of working class Scots having mostly left that unionist institution some time ago. In a colonial society all social institutions are colonial in nature and values – an illusory monarchy being one. The bourgeoisie in Scotland, whether CoS or not, have yet to figure out that inequality, deprivation and poverty is the price of colonial plunder. It is obvious that the CoS has no interest in independence, i.e. in liberating an oppressed people; it never utters any view on the nation’s most wretched predicament and national cause. The mankit Treaty of Union ensured that CoS privileges would be maintained along with certain other institutions, while the nation, its people and culture paid the price. Clearly the CoS has still to undertake a reasoned analysis of colonial society, though the native bourgeoisie are themselves condemned anyway once they assume the values of the colonizer.

      Liked by 7 people

  23. My proposed letter, not yet sent, hoping for some feedback first:

    Dear Reverend,

    On July the 5th the Honours of Scotland will be presented to Charles III as a follow through from his ascension to the English Throne.

    It is my very clear understanding that under current Scots law, King Charles cannot legally take the title and the Honours of the King of Scots until he has sworn the Scottish Coronation oath as specified in Scotland’s 1689 Claim of Right. His accession oath in Edinburgh does not qualify him for either. I also understand that he has said that he has no intention of taking the Scottish Coronation oath. That’s fine, but in that case I believe that he cannot then legally be regarded as the monarch of the United Kingdom either, because the English monarchy has no legal standing in Scotland, and lacking that standing, any assertion of being the monarch of the United Kingdom must be considered unsupported nonsense, and perhaps even fraudulent.

    One aspect of monarchy that has been severely abused in the past is the presumption by the English establishment that the English Crown’s assertion that the monarch of England is the ultimate owner of the territory of his kingdom, also somehow covers the territory of Scotland, thus justifying the UK government in asserting its ‘Crown in Parliament’ credentials to claim the right to ‘manage’ Scotland’s natural territorial resources on the monarch’s behalf, especially so in respect of Scotland’s oil. This is a falsehood based on equating the Scottish monarch’s rights as being essentially the same as the English monarch’s rights, a conclusion that can only be reached by carefully prospecting and treading a narrow and winding path of ignorance. This must be condemned and corrected, and lacking a Scottish Coronation and its associated Regnal Title should reinforce that correction.

    Given that the Scottish people are the true sovereigns of Scotland, it is a requirement of the Scottish Coronation Oath that he swear fealty to the Scots, and to uphold all of their constitutional rights and protections, as their legally authorised guardian. Thus the Coronation is not merely a religious ceremony as I have seen it described, it is also an event carrying secular, legal, and constitutional significance, and the sovereign Scots are fully entitled to expect those matters to be treated with humility and respect.

    It is my request as a sovereign of the Realm of Scotland that you be clear that the presentation of Scotland’s Honours can not in itself have any real meaning to either Scotland nor to King Charles, because they are not his unless and until he takes our Coronation Oath, and that if he does ever take that Oath he take it in full view of his sovereigns without equivocation. An oath taken in secret is no oath at all. Presenting the Honours of Scotland to King Charles III does not constitute a Coronation, and does not confer the title of King of Scots.

    The Scottish Crown is not his to take, but ours to offer, and conditions are attached.

    Please ensure he hears that, and hopefully understands it.

    For all the pomp and circumstance that surrounds any monarchy, sovereignty is both a powerful, and fragile thing, and it is incumbent on all of us to remember who has it, who does not, and why.

    Yours sincerely

    -Redacted- (Xaracen)

    A sovereign of the Realm of Scotland

    Liked by 7 people

      1. There is a relevant four or five minute segment in this linked Dìomhair YouTube (with English subtitles), which deals with Elizabeth’s post-Coronation 1952 visit to Edinburgh. The remit was of course to beguile Scots into thinking the Scottish regalia were being constitutionally acknowledged, while yet ensuring that no detail of the charade compromised the reality that only the English coronation had validity.

        From 20 mins 20 secs into the video until about 25 mins in —

        Liked by 1 person

    2. A fine letter but you may be interested to learn what I recently discovered in the House of Commons Library dated 19 April 2023.

      Under the subheading “Previous Changes to the Coronation Oath” it states “Technically any form of the Coronation Oath, which does not match the wording set out in the 1688 Act, is contrary to law. In practice, however, several changes have been made without amending the original Act”.

      Make of that what you will, but to me it seems that Charles Windsor holds no regnal title whatsoever and that England has been interregnum for over 3 centuries.

      Liked by 1 person

  24. The role of the Church during the 1707 Act of Union and throughout the Clearances in support of the Land Owners proves that they have no regard to the Rights of the People of Scotland.

    Liked by 3 people

  25. Rabbie Burns, alone, rose above the accepted “Truth” and declared the obvious.

    SUCH A PARCEL OF ROGUES IN A NATION.

    “We’re bought and sold for English gold” –
    Such a parcel of rogues in a nation!

    Liked by 2 people

  26. Excellent letter Iain.
    As chair of the SSRG, they surely must respond to you.

    Like

  27. Thanks for exposing this. Do you know how the oath of fealty was worded before 1603. Perhaps it is set down in the Claim of Right.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. The earliest I have includes:

      “….., according to the Will and Command of God, revealed in his foresaid Word, and according to the lovable Laws and Constitutions received in this Realm, in no way repugnant to the said Word of the Eternal, my God; and shall procure to my utmost to the Kirk of God and whole Christian people true and perfect Peace in all times coming; the Rights and Rents, with all just privileges of the Crown of Scotland, I shall preserve and keep inviolate, neither shall I transfer nor alienate the same; I shall forbid and repress in all Estates and all Degrees theft, Oppression and all kind of Wrong; in all Judgements,….”

      So, that precludes any monarch of Scotland transferring any of the powers afforded him or her to any other realm. They simply did not have the sovereignty that would enable to them to do so because that belonged to the people of Scotland and it still does today.

      There has never been a mechanism that would allow any transfer of powers to the United Kingdoms of Scotland and England. Despite what we learned at school and gets drummed into us at an early age, there has never been a “Union of the Crowns” in the year 1603 or any other year for that matter – it was, and still is, impossible for that to take place. That is why the unionists have not challenged the Claim of Right whenever it comes up at Westminster, because they know that a challenge would open a debate that they could not win – except in the voting chambers of Westminster.

      Liked by 1 person

  28. 1 Corinthians 14:34-35
    King James Version

    34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.

    35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

    A female Reverend says it all, why obey any Laws of either God or man when you can do as you please?

    Like

    1. Your intervention and question are off-topic and out of order. Diplomacy respects the office held regardless of incumbency or extraneous issues. That’s why it’s called “diplomacy” rather than “table-thumping”. Cuts down the number of wars, at least a bit…

      Liked by 1 person

Comments are closed.