Why Charles Windsor has no Regnal Title

Posted byiainlawson27Posted inUncategorizedTags:, , , , , , , , , ,

Research by Alex Thorburn of the Scottish National Congress, Steering Committee.

I am left wondering which regnal title Charles Philip Arthur George Windsor is using to attend a ceremony in Edinburgh next time round.

We know that he is not King of Scotland because there has never been such a title and he cannot be King of Scots as he has not upheld the full Claim of Right as specified in the Claim of Right Act 1689. 

So, with no Scottish Regnal position then he has to fall back on either King of the United Kingdom or King of England – well good luck with that! Just as with “King of Scotland”, King of the United Kingdom does not exist as the 2 Crowns were never joined together but they are invested in the same person. 

Ask yourself why there is a Crown Office in Edinburgh as well as the one in London? If it were a conjoined Crown there would be no need for one of the two offices. 

When I looked into the House of Commons Library a few weeks ago I followed the link there for “The Coronation Oath” and under a subheading of “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. 


These changes have generally reflected constitutional developments. The oath as set out in the 1689 Act referred to the “Kingdom of England”, so in later oaths this was changed to “Great Britain” and then to the “United Kingdom”. 


So, even the English Oath is not “Technically” legal. and as no English monarch since the Act of 1688 has taken the correct English Coronation Oath, then England has been interregnum since that date, and that includes Charles Philip Arthur George Windsor.

Later in the document and as published on 19 April 2023 it states: 

Until 1707 there was a requirement for any new Monarch to take both the English and Scottish oaths in order to be the Monarch in each country ( absolute proof the Crowns were not joined in any Union)

After the 1707 Union, the (English) Coronation Oath Act 1688 was extended to Scotland as part of the new Kingdom of Great Britain. 

Thereafter, there has been only one statutory Coronation Oath for British monarchs”. 

Nowhere does it state the legal basis for ignoring the Scottish Oath and as we know that Oath still exists because neither the Scottish Parliament nor the King of Scots had sovereignty as that rested with the People of Scotland and it still does today.  

No authority had been given by them to change any aspect of the Scottish Coronation Oath or the Scottish Crown (which means the People of Scotland and not the lump of gold and silver planted on the head of a monarch).

MY COMMENTS

This is hugely important, it is this move to annex Scotland by unconstitutional actions, extending the Crown of England to become an imaginary UK crown that is the mechanism that allows the plunder of all Scottish assets.

None of this forms part of the Treaty or Acts of Union. They could not because neither the Monarch, the Parliament or indeed the commissioners held the power to amend the Scottish Crown because that Crown was the Scottish people, not any figurehead. The people, most certainly did not give their permission or support. Instead they rioted in protest.

Since England recognised they could not do this in a constitutional manner we have been subject to a longstanding game of connivance and disguise where they just assume these powers. They always do their best to disguise this but sometimes they are forced to take measures, like for instance, the fact of there being separate Crown offices between Scotland and the rest of the UK. They know and recognise having just the one UK CROWN OFFICE would run the risk of challenge as just extending the English Crown to Scotland is impossible as Sovereignty in Scotland through the Scottish Crown (the people) and is totally incompatible with English sovereignty ( the King and Parliament). So the Crown Office required to operate differently. It is setup on a sort of organisational “trustee” basis although the revenues, as you would expect head South at the end of the day.

They are very vulnerable over this as the Union of the Crowns is a fairy story, a complete invention. What happened was that one monarch became the Monarch of both countries but, for a century before the Union, any Monarch needed to swear both the English and Scottish oath, recognising the separate Crowns, to remain Monarch in each country. There is NOTHING in the Treaty or Acts of Union that change this position. The fact that for a hundred years before the Treaty of Union both oaths had to be made is the clearest proof that the Scottish Crown was never subsumed into the English or UK Crown. Yet, and this is the crucial point, it is this completely false assertion that allows England to rob Scotland of all our key assets. Please tell your family, friends, neighbours and fellow workers about this and also share it widely on social media. We can PROVE all of this and we will when we get to the international courts,

I am, as always

YOURS FOR SCOTLAND

BEAT THE CENSORS

Unfortunately there are some sites where extensive blocking takes place against bloggers who do not slavishly follow the dictates of one political party. This is a direct threat to freedom of speech and I unhesitatingly condemn such action. To overcome this problem I rely on my readers to share Yours for Scotland articles as widely as possible. My thanks to those who help overcome censorship.

FREE SUBSCRIPTIONS

The most reliable way to get articles from this site is by taking out a free subscription which are available on the Home and Blog pages of the Yours for Scotland website. Given that I often seem to face other problems with both Twitter and Facebook this guarantees that my content is freely available.

SALVO

Salvo continues to do valuable work and an ever increasing number of people are involved. They are now running strong campaigns on several key issues and as the campaigning arm of Liberation.Scot they are the key to success. If you would like to make a donation to further Salvo and Liberation’s campaigning here are the details. All donations large or small greatly helps our work.

Bank RBS

ACCOUNT SALVOSCOT Ltd.

Ac number 00779437

Sort Code 83-22-26

LIBERATION.SCOT

If you have not already joined please visit the above website and join now. We are looking to achieve a membership larger than any other political organisation in Scotland to approach the UN to achieve the official status as Scotland’s Liberation Movement intent of removing the colonising forces from our nation. Be part of it.


54 thoughts on “Why Charles Windsor has no Regnal Title”

      1. we are seeking a second legal opinion on its application under Devolution and asking economists for opinions on its possible effects both under devolution and independence.

        Liked by 8 people

      3. C what i can do in the next couple of weeks.

        i have an MSP who is prepared to listen and help.

        That’s a start!

        G
        Sent from my iPhone

        Liked by 3 people

  2. The Scottish people owe a debt of gratitude to people like Alex Thorburn who spend the time to look that little bit deeper than most. I truly hope that Stephen Flynn and his like read this article. It might help them that to see the truth, that the Scottish people are indeed sovereign. The time is coming when that sovereignty will not only be recognised by other states but its true meaning will also become apparent to the people. Roll on that glorious day!

    Liked by 14 people

  3. Whilst I wouldn’t wish any harm to Charlie, watching the movements of other royals leads me to believe that we are not being told the whole truth. I honestly do not think that Charlie will be with us for much longer.

    Questions arise re Bungalow Bill, Harry and Kate. Do not be surprised at any surprise news about the royals In the near future.

    Liked by 4 people

    1. while not wishing Charles any harm the fact is he might not be about. When that happens then William is proclaimed King immediately. Consequently any objection has no time to gather support.

      Surely now is the time to coordinate a petition that the next head of state must be elected by a majority of the Scottish electorate. That opens the door to an elected monarch.

      We’re not denying William the opportunity to to be king , but we are saying that he or anyone else standing must have the majority support of the people.

      If such a petition garnered half of the Scottish electorate that would put an incredible pressure on him even if the U.K. gov. ignored the petition.

      The petition would not state that there should be no monarch. it would state that the monarch had to be elected.

      Liked by 3 people

  4. Thanks Alex, excellent stuff.

    A remarkable account buried on bbc.com referencing the Queen’s 1953 visit to Scotland. The palace and the monarch appear to have been aware that she would need to be known, officially, as Queen Elizabeth I of Scotland and II of England, just as James VI of Scotland was James I of England.

    “A congregation of 1,700 watched as the Queen received the Honours from the Dean of the Thistle, Charles Warr, and then passed the Crown of Scotland to the Duke of Hamilton, the Sword of State to the Earl of Home, and the Sceptre to the Earl of Crawford and Balcarres.

    “The last time the ceremony had been enacted before this was in 1822 during the visit of King George IV.

    “The Queen dressed in “day clothes” for the ceremony, not ceremonial robes, a deliberate decision made by palace officials to avoid the service being interpreted as a coronation.

    “Reportedly, this was not received well by the media who saw it as a slight.
    Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh, wore a field marshall’s uniform.”

    Liked by 8 people

    1. I had found this in the House of Commons Library a couple of weeks before Charlie’s visit but on the morning of his visit to Edinburgh I decided to look a bit more deeply into the HoC records. I was sick of watching all the pomp and ceremony from MSM – especially the BBC that I gave up and found the part regarding changes to the 1688 Coronation Oath being “contrary to law”.

      I knew then that poor Charlie didn’t have any regnal title and that the people of Scotland had been conned by the English parliament and his ancestors for over 300 years.

      I always wondered why there were 2 Crown Offices, because why would they need 2 Crown Offices if the title King of the United Kingdom truly existed.

      The repercussions from having no regnal title at all, brings into question every Act ever passed by either the Westminster Parliament since Queen Anne and of course the Westminster Parliament’s administrative body based at Holyrood as the powers of both are supposedly by permission of a monarch – anyone know where we can find one?

      Then, think of all the ‘honours’ bestowed on Lords and Knights and all the OBEs etc. handed out by the monarch on behalf of a grateful nation – all null and void. Taxation of the people of Scotland in the name of the non-existent monarch was described by Disraeli as – ‘To tax the community for the advantage of a class is not protection: it is plunder.’

      Liked by 8 people

  5. Stephen Flynn, leader of the SNP Westminster group of MPs, says:

    “Oh yes, absolutely the Scottish people should be sovereign, are sovereign”

    before going on to say in the very next sentence:

    “Because of the nature of the Union that we have ultimately Parliament is sovereign on these isles”.

    So simultaneously he believes the Scottish people are sovereign AND the Westminster Parliament is sovereign!

    This clown has obviously never even heard of the Claim of Right (1689) far less understood it.

    Scotland – led by numpties:

    Liked by 9 people

      2. Yes, Spear – and how fortunate we are that our masters refrain from unleashing their power as brutally as they could… and have.

        The Reverend Thomas Fyshe Palmer of Dundee – sentenced to 7 years’ transportation for writing and publishing ‘seditious literature’ – said that, in Scotland’s case, the Government would prefer “the destruction of a whole people merely because they will be free!”

        Of course this is not 1820 – there are many more subtleties and complexities in the way power is exercised, with dire economic, legal, normative, social, symbolic, and psychological ramifications for those on the receiving end.

        When it comes to the ultimate expression of that power, it isn’t mercy, or an unexpected increase in compassion or wisdom, or a hidden belief in justice that holds them back. There’s nothing admirable about it. That’s just the way things go when British hegemony is regarded by enough Scots as the natural course of things.

        Liked by 3 people

      1. There are no ignorant MSPs. They are making deliberate choices, betraying the people for personal gain or fear which makes them worse than Unionists.

        Liked by 9 people

  8. I had a similar ‘discussion’ with him regarding the fact that Holyrood is a branch office of Westminster. It was spawned off Westminster and us such is governed by their laws. However, Holyrood is the site of a Parliament For Scotland and not Of Scotland, it’s function has been constrained by Westminster and because of this it cannot fully serve the needs of the nation. He was not aware of the claim of rights and had no knowledge of the Treaty of Union’s contents but more importantly, no desire to find out. 

    Our politicians are necessary for independence, to sign off on the cheerio paperwork, they are the nib on the pen, but the hand on the pen should be that of the people. This is why we require civic Scotland, the people to be driving independence away from political control.

    Steven stonewalled me in the discussion and it was at that point I realised that he was not a structural player on our side of the argument. An inability to show political curiosity to further one’s argument and get us closer to Indy makes me ask who exactly are you working for?

    Liked by 15 people

    1. I’d go a lot further re oor wee Flynn MP – doesn’t know, doesn’t want to know spells unknown agenda – definitely not prioritising Indy. Make up your own minds folks & keep an open eye to all he pronounces from here on in.

      Liked by 7 people

    2. Spot on with the lack of political curiousity – there’s a complete absence of intellectual curiousity too amongst the political classes.

      Civic Scotland however – what is that? They laid the plans for the Scottish Parliament – and look how they managed to exclude the people of Scotland in the process.

      Liked by 1 person

  9. Charlie Windsor offered us a fragment of the Scottish oath ‘to protect the Protestant religion’ during his mother’s funeral procession through Scotland. This was only shown once on BBC in my experience and I thought it was very curious at the time.Knowing his high levels of motivation to get his mitts on money/land / jewels etc, I can only imagine it was a half baked attempt to get hold of more of of Scotland than he already has.I am pretty sure he is very well versed in all of this as indeed are many of the English ruling class.

    When in the North of Sutherland a few years after the 2014 referendum ,I spoke to a crofter who had some horses for ponytrekking. She spoke about having a party from a shooting lodge having a booking for the day after the Indy referendum. She went out to meet the party with a very heavy heart to find them all in very high spirits sharing bottles of champagne!

    Liked by 7 people

  10. Pingback: Why Charles Windsor has no Regnal Title | Of Men and Markets

  13. I did my own research on this in 2017. I have been spreading the news since the to people I meet when appropriate.

    In almost every case I get an incredulous stare or the with ‘Eh!’. It’s easy to explain you just need a few facts as stated in this article. The one I like most now is Charlie’s coronation oath. He was sworn in as the King of England and all his dominions. (Code for Gibraltar and nine inhabited islands). No mention of Scotland.

    Liked by 12 people

  14. When a subjugated people’s history is written by their oppressor, historical actuality is necessarily embellished by untruths, falsehoods and downright lies. When that distorted actuality is promoted, ad infinitum, throughout-the-land from the captured, acquiescent ‘pulpits’ of authority and ‘respectability’ by a dominant-class and its agents, ideological-indoctrination can be the only possible lot of a people and their nation. If only for that reason, Scotland’s case , with all argumentation arising from documented historical evidence, must be taken to, and deliberated upon, by a court well outside the constraints inherent to the ideological construct and narrative that is Gt. Britain.

    Liked by 11 people

  15. I remain to be convinced that (correctly) illuminating these constitutional inconsistencies will have concrete results in the present, British state. History tells us that where the Permanent State is concerned, “might is right”. Ask Craig Murray whether they move the legal goalposts to suit their malevolent purpose.

    This said, I value the work done for two main reasons:

    *  As an educational / campaigning tool.

    *  As a foundation for a written constitution for an independent Scotland.

    Further, I would suggest that the good folk of Salvo are put front and centre in any body drafting that new, constitution. I wouldn’t let the current crop of carpetbagging, careerists, who at the very minimum are tainted by association with the Anglo/American security state, be even tangentially engaged in this endeavour.

    As for campaigning on constitutional matters while we remain in the British state, we have to contend with the phenomenon where the entire MSM goes into Pyongyang Daily Worker mode every time a Royal “crisis” occurs.

    If the population knew the truth (were allowed to know the truth) of what happened around 1940, the British state would already be a Republic.

    Here we should be asking a number of questions.

    * What did the Royal household know in advance about Deputy Führer Rudolph Hess parachuting onto Eaglesham moor on 10/05/42?

    This is not unguided speculation, the terms of the Peace Treaty, Hess carried with him included items specific to the future status of individual members of the Royal family. Incredibly it was proposed to make one of the Kings younger brothers the titular King of Poland (which would remain in reality a vassal, Nazi state). Quite what the citizens of Poland thought about having the bisexual, heroin addicted Duke of Kent foisted upon them as their King was apparently a moot point. The bizarre minutiae of the document Hess brought with him were hashed out in a series of clandestine negotiations conducted in Stockholm, Helsinki and possibly Madrid.

    * Why did Dowager Queen Mary “outrage” the Foreign Office by “requesting” (read demand) all Diplomatic cables be copied to the Palace during WWII (source Henry “Chips” Channon, PPS to Deputy Foreign Secretary)?

    Channon’s status may sound fairly junior, but as the Foreign Secretary was Lord Halifax who was prohibited from the HoC, Channon was included in all the semi covert intrigue circulating at the time.

    The Dowager Queen (Mary of Teck) was the domineering character in the Royal household of the time, unsettled by the abdication of Edward VIII and other latent, hidden scandals. In the scandal of the five, female cousins and second-cousins (of Queen Elizabeth II) dumped into a lunatic asylum and forgotten on the same day in 1941, clearly someone was coordinating / commanding, someone with the authority to demand more than one set of parents comply with a plan.

    The Dowager Queen was utterly ruthless in defending the private interests of the institution / family.

    * What was effete art critic & Surveyor of King’s Pictures, Anthony Blunt doing in bombed out Germany in the summer of 1945?

    The Palace cover story for this is utterly risible. Blunt was apparently enduring hardship, risking malnutrition and disease, travelling on roads congested with huge caravans of destitute refugees, in order to recover near 100 year old correspondence between Queen Victoria and one of her German, Princes daughters.

    * Why when Anthony Blunt was exposed as Soviet spy, was MI6 Officer Peter Wright, tasked with interrogating Blunt, told by a “senior official at Palace” not to pursue questions pertaining to the German trip under any circumstances?

    * Why have the Royal Archives for period of WWII (curated at taxpayer expense) remained sealed?

    Liked by 10 people

    1. The importance of getting our case heard in the international stage cannot be overstated. That is where our efforts are being organised. Unlike the SNP we recognise there is no prospect of justice in the UK Supreme Court.

      Liked by 13 people

      1. Sorry… just curious, Iain. ‘No prospect of justice’ or not, why would you go to the ‘UK Supreme Court’ if you don’t recognise that court as the basis of Scottish law? It’s a bit like confirming it’s claim as the overall sovereign justiciary by persuing your case there.

        I understand, given WM claims that it IS the overall sovereign justiciary that’s where they deem it SHOULD go, but as Scotland doesn’t recognise that (legally speaking. Unfortunately many Scots don’t know that) it would be pandering to their lie & would be quite pointless. But seems to me, given your (and mine!) belief that they are NOT sovereign, it’s an unnecessary step, no prospect of justice or not.

        Going straight to the UN signifies you don’t recognise the UKSC & that’s exactly what SALVO needs to portray & Scotland to recognise – UK are NOT SOVEREIGN in any way, or through any of their institutions. Good move, SALVO!

        Liked by 2 people

    2. Very interesting series of comments here, Vivian! The death of the Duke of Kent in a aeroplane crash put an end to any plans to foist him on Poland. I had a soft spot for him too, given his portrayal in Poliakoff’s The Lost Prince:-

      https://www.theguardian.com/media/2003/jan/16/broadcasting.arts

      https://www.stephenpoliakoff.com/the-lost-prince-2003/

      https://www.theguardian.com/media/2003/jan/16/broadcasting.arts

      I knew about two of the Queen Mother’s relatives being locked up in loony bins – I had no idea that there were as many as five! It was shocking what was done to them.

      Liked by 1 person

  16. Iain, I fail to see this as news. Your excellent blog have covered this scandal for years. The Scottish Government need to be told publicly of this, then they can’t behave like that idiot Flynn.

    Liked by 1 person

  17. A really interesting article & with a message which I wholeheartedly endorse! Thank you, Alex, for taking time to research & pull your excellent info together.

    Just one thing though, as I’ve posted here on this blog before… I’m not convinced we were in a Union of Crowns after 1649. Through an Act of Parliament (Act For Abolishing the Kingly Office), Oliver Cromwell declared England a REPUBLIC in 1649 & that Act was never officially (through Parliament) repealed. Charles II was encouraged to return home & England simply turned a blind eye to republicanism & returned to a state of monarchy. Supposedly this ended England’s period as a republic. But to all intents & purposes, that Act is still in effect. And that Act effectively dissolved the UotC. How can you have a union of crowns – when parliament has ended the state of monarchy?

    Alex’s research & findings are the culmination of centuries of ‘the lie’ – that of ‘if we ignore it happened, then it never happened’ that England was ever a republic and that Scots remain part of the union (UotC). We’re NOT. England’s own Parliament gave up the ‘union’ status, but for nefarious reasons, needs to keep the lie going. Thus the attempts to hide information that would bring the lie out in the open. But which Alex has dug up. Unfortunately for England, Scots now know enough about their history to know that Charles had to swear fealty to the Scots, swear that they had his protection – but he knows he can’t do that & that Scots would rise up if he was seen to consent to the harm England is doing to Scotland, after he had sworn his protection. Thus he could not offer us the terms of his supposed sovereignty over us, when his Mom died.

    It would be very interesting to see this republicanism vs monarchy question tested in court.

    The persistent lie about the union of crowns is simply an ignoring of the dissolution with a view to grabbing the resources of Scotland, which England had been desperate to get hold of for a very long time. Much like present day WM grabbing Scotland’s oil & its determination not to let Scotland go under any circumstances. And much like ‘the lie’, they’ll treat all the broken terms of the Treaty of Union the same way. ‘If we pretend we had a right to do that, it never happened & the jocks are still captive’. The lies persist & WM has no intention of unmasking them so WE must do it. This is a step forward…

    I look forward to the case going before the United Nations.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. Interesting what you say about 1649 but it is Salvo’s view that the Union of the Crowns did not happen. We can be sure of this because neither the Monarch of Scotland or England, neither Parliament English or Scots ever held the power to co join or amend the Scottish crown in any manner as sovereignty then and now is with the people of Scotland.

      Liked by 5 people

    2. Yes Katielas04, the monarchy (lets give them that status for the purposes of this reply) has never protected Scotland since James VI left for London and those that succeeded him did nothing to change that situation.

      James VI left for London in March 1603 with the promise that he would return every three years. However, his only return to Edinburgh came 14 years after his departure to mark his 50th anniversary as King of Scots. His visit in the summer of 1617, 407 years ago, was to be his only return to Scotland. James VI always boasted that he ruled Scotland with the pen where his ancestors had to rule it by the sword.

      Ever since James VI left for London, he paid no heed to the Sovereignty of the People of Scotland nor did he protect Scotland or its people against English interests.

      As Andrew Fletcher of Saltoun (The Patriot) stated: “All of our affairs, since the union of crowns, have been managed by the advice of English ministers, and the principal offices of the kingdom filled with such men, as the court of England knew would be subservient to their designs.

      So, after over 400 years, nothing has changed from Andrew Fletcher’s statement, as Alf Baird has so often illustrated the control of our institutions are full of non-Scots who bear no allegiance to Scotland or its people.

      I have always wondered why, since the Scottish people alone are sovereign in this country, did no monarch ever (apart from, James VII), become the subject of action taken against them? Probably by using the same smoke and mirrors that they do today to keep England and its monarch in the custom to which they have become so accustomed due to raping most of the rest of the world of its resources – including, of course, Scotland.

      Perhaps, they agree with Voltaire who said “The comfort of the rich relies upon an abundant supply of the poor”

      Liked by 3 people

      1. I am very interested in the quotes you give, SpofA.

        As Andrew Fletcher of Saltoun (The Patriot) stated: “All of our affairs, since the union of crowns, have been managed by the advice of English ministers, and the principal offices of the kingdom filled with such men, as the court of England knew would be subservient to their designs.

        I’ve done a wee bit of reading of Scotland’s history, mainly covering the 17th and early 18th centuries. My theory is that the most powerful amongst the nobility were corrupted by the prospect of enriching themselves (Buccleuch, in particular, made some advantageous marriages, acquiring land and wealth in England) and turned their attention away from Scotland, leaving it to the depredations of the lower ranks of the aristocracy and landowning class, who saw their own opportunity. The 17th century was full of civil strife, war and famine – and the worst century for the oppression of women, in the form of the Scottish witchhunt. The witchhunt has been characterised as a form of social control – I think that the evidence for that it is very strong. i also believe that Scotland’s military capabilities were deliberately undermined, but I don’t know that for certain.

        Can you tell me where I can find this excellent quote from Fletcher of Saltoun?

        Liked by 2 people

      2. Hi Fiona. I too undertake a great deal of research and it is a fascinating time to review. The quote you are looking for can be found at: https://quote.org/quote/all-of-our-affairs-since-the-union-618722  Or go to Quote.org and enter Andrew Fletcher of Saltoun.

        There are a number of very useful Andrew Fletcher quotes and he had a fascinating life.. On the other side, I have been looking into the actions of James VI and it’s just as well that Zoom was over 4 centuries away because he betrayed Scots and Scotland and was the early catalyst that ended in the union of 1707.

        Liked by 1 person

    1. Gregor spend time to read all text within the Salvo website and also the book Duan Hauden by Alfred Baird. Look at YouTube there are a good few videos there.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. every other source says Charles is King. Only Salvo and Mr Baird say he isn’t. I’m sorry, but this is just going a bit far, tbh.

        Like

  19. Just read a most interesting piece about how the DMK party of India has used AI to create a political address by their late departed leader M Karunanidhi.

    No joking aside here but I couldn’t but help think that this could be just the thing for Scotland.

    I mean we live in a Walter Mitty land where the apparatus of a functioning state is not what it seems.

    As an example, and as this article points out we have an ipso facto King Charles whilst in reality we don’t. But was it AI that foisted this perception upon us.

    We also, or so we have been told, have the most powerful devolved parliament on the planet. But again, was it AI that forced this perception upon us.

    And we have a free, open and honest media too. Of that I am sure. It couldn’t be any other way, or could it?

    But best of all I know that I live under the warm protection of a Union whose interest is in me and others like me.

    And that, without using AI to resurrect the dead to speak to us, is where we are. But boy oh boy doesn’t AI have potential.

    Mr Putin is alleged to have said that whoever controls AI will control the world. But I think there’s a few who’ve made a rather good fist of doing that over years without AI.

    So is Scotland a colony. Of course not because we would have been told so.

    We face a formidable opponent who would keep us down, has kept us down, is still keeping us down but our opponent is not what it was, not what it thinks it is. It is an opponent in decline economically militarily, culturally and it knows it.

    And that is it this fine Monday morning. Off to play the Boom Town rats ditty about liking Mondays.

    Otherwise keep up the good work all who contribute to supporting forums for getting the truth out. It is a big task.

    But our day will come. Of that there can be no doubt.

    Liked by 2 people

  20. He could rock up as the King of Canada (he really is), or the King of Australia (he really is) for all I care. The King of Scots is one of his other titles (it really is). He’s the King, and basically he can do whatever the fuck he wants – he really is theoretically above the law, so ancient bits of paper don’t count for shit. This article written by one of his subjects treats him as a normal citizen subject to contrived legal gubbins. That’s unrealistic. If you are interested in this kind of stuff you can also try the Pope – he has his own State, and wields great power over about 1 billion people, including a lot of Scots.

    Like

      2. History is where he thinks his right to rule, his authority comes from, but it is history that denies him his supposed regnal positions.

        Liked by 1 person

Comments are closed.