I would like to URGENTLY garner an opinion from you all out there on a theory that I have as to the full measure of the plan for the ESM, and that famous Cameron meeting last Friday.
I know that many of you who visit this site have looked deeply into our constitution, and are already aware that our State, the Crown, is not the Monarchy, but the Corporation of London.
The ‘Crown’ is in trust to the Corporation of London, it owns it and has done since Cromwell hocked it in return for unrepayable loans from Dutch Bankers, loans that are still being repaid today, to finance a bankrupt England after the Civil War.
In order that the Crown never left these shores and the transaction remained unknown to a largely starving and extremely volatile population it was to be held in trust in perpetuity by a new body, which eventually became The Corporation of London .
It is this Crown that all State employees swear allegiance to, with the exception of the Royal Navy who give their allegiance to the Queen directly. It is why the Crown is housed in the Tower of London, within the bounds of the City, and only loaned to the Monarch for State occasions.
What these charlies across the Channel are trying to do is the same thing, and largely for the same reasons. The new revised ESM that was suggested on Friday would become the new State of Europa.
In the same way that the State sits above the British Government, this planned ESM Treaty would be a level of State above the EU and its institutions.
National Governments will be shareholders in the ESM, their elite given immunity, but the daily politics will still be handled by the EU political structures and the existing treaties. Transparancy is achieved by getting all the existing EU treaty members and anyone who joins the EU to automatically become a shareholder in the ESM, but it would only work if all 27 members agreed to join into it, in order to make it both transparent and invisible at the same time.
The Euro already has international status, so to create the corporation which owns the Euro and give it international, legal, diplomatic status is to effectively give it Statehood. (read the ESM carefully, you will find all those things in there).
I believe that Cameron had to say NO to the Merkozy plan on Friday, not because he didn’t want to participate, but that he couldn’t. The British Government could not agree to this new ESM without breaking their contract with the Corporation of London and would therefore forfeit the Crown.
When the ESM treaty was adopted in Council on 25 March 2011, it was that all 27 member states agreed that the 17 Eurozone members could use a vehicle in order to consolidate monetary matters, and that only the 17 Eurozone members would be members of the ESM.
I believe that what was presented to Cameron on Friday was an amendment to that treaty that would require all 27 member states to be required to be members and shareholders of the ESM, because the new plan was to set the ESM up as the European State.
If you read my article where I explained the ESM in some detail, I wondered when I was writing it why all the immunity, why all the diplomatic status, why is structures, buildings, files etc were to be inviolable, and why the automatic entry for new EU member states.
http://www.parker-joseph.com/pjcjournal/2011/08/31/esm-treaty-eu-commission-mafia-at-work/
Now it makes sense.
Just as the British ‘state’ is the Corporation of London, the plan was to set up the ESM corporation to be the State of the EU. However, it would require all 27 members to agree to it in order for it to become the transparent layer above the EU institutions, just as the ‘Crown’ is here in the UK, because it would also require the total handover of financial sovereignty in order to do it.
Cameron has been told by the City of London, by the Corporation that they will not, indeed cannot, be subsumed into this new EU structure, that’s why he had to say NO.
Now that Cameron has said no, the lawyers have stepped in, saying that such a new treaty would not be able to use the existing EU institutions blah blah blah.
To give weight to this theory, I present a document written by Steve Peers, Professor of Law, University of Essex who has analysed the text of the Friday meeting. You can download it here.
http://www.statewatch.org/analyses/no-162-euro-statement-dec-11.pdf
NOW I understand why Cameron said no, he had no choice, this is going to be a battle between the Corporation of London and the ESM. Not forgetting that at this level, the Corporation of London in the form of the British State also holds sway over Australia, Canada, NZ and anywhere else in the Commonwealth that has a Governor General representing ‘The Crown’.
Now whether this new structure would continue to use Euro’s or not is debatable, whilst the speculation continues that Germany is printing DMarks, it is possible that they believe that a new DMark denominated structure would satisfy the markets better.
Finally, when you have absorbed all this above, including the documents, have a read of this report from ZeroHedge. because as always, Germany has a backup plan…
Remember, Germany’s finance minister has stressed the importance of a “political union,” NOT a “monetary union.”
“What we’re now doing with the fiscal union, what I’m describing here, is a short-term step for the currency,” Mr. Schäuble said. “In a larger context, naturally we need a political union.”..
[Schäuble] sees the turmoil as not an obstacle but a necessity. “We can only achieve a political union if we have a crisis,” Mr. Schäuble said.
Look at your passport, it says that you are a citizen of the EU. Only a State can grant citizenship, the plan for the EU has always been one of eventual statehood, that is why it has been so imperative for them to keep the people out of the decision making process.
In the minds of the colleagues it must be simple. Make the EU too big to fail. The Barosso despised credit rating agencies could no longer pick off countries one by one, as national economies simply became internal ones, part of the single market, there would in their minds be One country, One State, One economy. Too big to fail?
It goes a long way to explain the lack of detail, the obfuscation and the wall to wall PR press coverage for Cameron.
But for Britain it would have meant the end of Sterling, the end of our ability to trade where we liked, the end of a nation.
In order for Merkozy to achieve their dream of Statehood for the EU it was essential for them that Britain be in the ESM, because they wanted the new State to be able to utilise the existing EU institutions turning them into departments of State. For the plan to work now Britain would have to leave the EU altogether leaving 26 members in both bodies.
If Britain fails to leave the EU they would have to set up a whole new EU structure without British input from the top down, State, ESM, institutions. which I just don’t think they would be able to do without having to explain it to the people.
Perhaps in a very round about way Cameron did as much on Friday as Churchill could have done, but I don’t think the boy is bright enough to realise it.
The word Eurosceptic has been hijacked by those who think reform from the inside is possible. Its not. 
Ian,
I have a fair bit of time for you, but I just don’t get this. What do you think ‘forfeit the Crown’ actually means?
The Euro states couldn’t even be made to meet the requirements of the original stability pact (even France and Germany broke the rules) – who is to enforce anything against those governments?
If a banker, or the lord mayor or london, stands up and says ‘I am soverign’ how far do you think they would get?
I think Cameron wanted to avoid a UK referendum at all costs – so couldn’t be party to any treaty that transferred more power to the EU. Thus he needed an EU treaty change with a UK opt-out (what he asked for), or there had to be a completely new non-EU, Eurozone treaty with nothing to do with the UK (as is currently in progress).
Corporations and Trusts do need a massive taking down a peg or several – but they (like governments) only get away with what the public let them get away with.
Paul,
Its late so my response may not be the fullest.
you say:
The Euro states couldn’t even be made to meet the requirements of the original stability pact (even France and Germany broke the rules) – who is to enforce anything against those governments?
I say:
Ask the elected governments of Italy and Greece who the enforcers are. Greece is being asset stripped by EU administrators as we speak. Its all over the Greek press, but its not been in the Telegraph so I suppose there will be those who won’t consider that to be true.
you say:
If a banker, or the lord mayor or london, stands up and says ‘I am soverign’ how far do you think they would get?
I say:
That depends on who they are saying it to, and how they say it. There have been a few notable victories of late utilising our Common Law.
You say:
I think Cameron wanted to avoid a UK referendum at all costs – so couldn’t be party to any treaty that transferred more power to the EU. Thus he needed an EU treaty change with a UK opt-out (what he asked for), or there had to be a completely new non-EU, Eurozone treaty with nothing to do with the UK (as is currently in progress).
I say:
I think you are not being at your best today. If only politics was that simple, so black and white, especially the devious, snake oil politics of the EU.
You say:
Corporations and Trusts do need a massive taking down a peg or several – but they (like governments) only get away with what the public let them get away with.
I say:
You have my full agreement with that statement. Sheeple, led by the propaganda driven MSM
and finally your first question:
What do you think ‘forfeit the Crown’ actually means?
I say:
It means exactly what it says on the tin. Any financial transaction that uses collateral, and that what the Crown is being used as, can be forfeit if payment is missed or ceases. It can then be sold or assigned to the highest bidder. Hard to believe that England was once in the same place that Greece & Italy find themselves today, going to the bankers and putting the Crown up as collateral, but again, ask Greece where their sovereignty now lies, who now owns their State assets, in fact who now owns Greece. For the time being, run by the EU but virtually owned by Goldman Sachs.
We are in the post democratic age – he who pays the piper calls the tune.
It’s a thought-provoking proposition and I’d come down on the side of this being more credible more than not.
I’ll ponder this – I don’t want to write something glib that can be batted out the park with the phrase “conspiracy theory”…
…but I think that all of the freeman-on-the-land, common law, English constitution and treason law themes that have circulated amongst those of us on the blogosphere over the last couple of years would all recognise something credible in the hypothesis you’ve outlined.
I’d like to think – using a parallel – that you have your hand down the back of the sofa and the tips of your fingers on a potential jigsaw puzzle piece.
Collectively, we’re all seeing the picture that the jigsaw puzzle pieces form but almost none of us know for certain what to do about any of it.
The best anyone has come up with so far is the use of the word ‘no’… and in that, I’m not referencing David Cameron!
TTC
TTC,
Thanks for that. If this does little more than raise a discussion and some thought provoking debate that is good, if it goes even further and gets someone in the legal or political ‘professions’ to openly admit that we are living this lie currently, but we are unwilling to extend that lie to the EU that would be even better.
I don’t know if it needs to be this complicated. There are simpler explanations that are convincing. Peter Hitchins wrote a decent article which was plausible.
tomsmith,
Everything about the EU is complicated, from the simplest of regulations to the biggest Treaty so far, Lisbon, they make it so. They find it impossible to create anything that can be simple and simply understood.
If you look at Lisbon, it contained everything that the Constitutional Treaty did except the flag, the anthem and statehood.
The flag and anthem are back already, this plan provides the Statehood.
May I ask why the outline sketched by Hitchens is insufficient to explain what is going on in your view?
If you wish to believe Hitchens has the answers, feel free.
I am capable for thinking for myself, doing my own research and arriving at my own conclusions. Its anathema to a collectivist I know.
I couldn’t be less collectivist if I tried. I think you have me confused with someone else.
Regarding Hitchens article from last week, I don’t believe it particularly and it is obviously an opinion piece but it does seem to explain everything in a relatively simple way. I was just wondering why you reject this explanation? Similar explanations are put forward by others, including Richard North. I’m not attacking you, just interested to know the reason for the more complex explantion you adhere to.
TomSmith,
If I confuse you with someone else, then I apologise.
With regards to Hitchens and North, unfortunately they have got hung up with the pedants view, that there was not treaty, therefore there could be no veto, without delving any deeper into why Cameron came back saying he had effectively vetoed their plans.
The reality is that there was a draft International Agreement, to which Cameron said NO. Right, its not a treaty, but he did say NO. My investigation centred around the reasons why he said no, not an argument over the form of words. In that sense I was right, in that the agreement is calling for constitutional changes at the national level, which would in effect grant the EU constitutional supremacy rather than just legislative, effectively creating the EU state, something that both Hitchens and North, and everyone else for that matter, have either overlooked or ignored.
I think that you might have placed the oyster knife in the hinges of all the problems. If the real enemy is inside, it can be exposed with a little prising and wiggling.
Just having a little bit more of a think about this – and I thought I’d do it out loud here first. Please correct me if I need it.
I am wondering if there is a secret history that not many of us are aware. Wouldn’t the Crown become meaningless after the Civil War and replaced by the Commonwealth? Isn’t it more likely that the City of London became Vaticanesque (and able, eventually in its history, to remain independent of the EU) through deals with William of Orange to bring him to the throne as the first puppet? With the Crown an essential part of government, the situation regarding the governance of the UK was and is that it is being ruled in the best interests of the City. In that case, is the root of all that is wrong with the country the usurpation of the rightful Commonwealth of England, and the solution its reassertion?
Paul,
The Crown never becomes meaningless, it is both the symbol and the source of power, and the crown does not have to have physical presence either. That the City of London became a City State as did Rome is not lost on me, each being the holder of a Crown.
Your reply much appreciated. I was thinking of the Crown as that abstract State-entity that, as far as my limited knowledge is telling me, was replaced by a Commonwealth. Surely there was no king, no kingdom, and no Crown after the Civil War?
In that case, I am thinking that all the legal arguments for why the English are not subject to the Crown (therefore, the rule of the City of London Corporation or anyone else who claims to be in possession of it) were made and justified after the Civil War – and still stand. If this can be substantiated, it follows that whatever the Crown has delivered to the English through its “front” at Westminster (which I believe from my reading of Bagehot, was never meant to be truly representative of the people) is unlawful.
Paul,
Surely there was no king, no kingdom, and no Crown after the Civil War?
Yes and no. No King certainly, but his Kingdom and Crown remained. Money had to be raised to pay the Model Army if nothing else to keep order, enter the Dutch Bankers.
The first Commonwealth collapsed in disarray, the monarchy, albeit constitutional restored, but the Kingdom or what we would call today the State remained with the Crown, in hock to the Bankers, as it still is.
Consider you getting a loan and using your house as collateral. Providing you continue to pay, you are free to continue using your house and all the rights of property ownership that go with it, stop paying and it’s forfeit. The State/Crown is no different in this case.
The second commonwealth drew on that, taking the Royal prerogatives from the Crown so long as they continued to pay. Notice that this is why they are only prerogatives and not outright powers.
Thanks v. much for replying again. I will digest this and do some more reading.
Interesting theory IPJ. Have linked in upcoming post.
I found this somewhere on the web some time ago, but forgot to record where.
When the Royal carriage is about to cross the boundary of the City of Westminster to enter the City of London, the Sovereign is challenged by the Lord Mayor, the City Marshal and the Aldermen. The Lord Mayor steps forward carrying his Sword of State and offers it point downwards to The Queen, who stretches out her hand and touches it. By surrendering his sword, permission to enter the City is given and the cord stretched across the road marking the boundary is lowered.
What I found interesting is the reference to “Sword of State”. What State?
Yes, that debt was a major factor. The Crown can reside anywhere, it can go offshore, as far as the CofL is concerned. Britain must keep it where it is because of concessions it made.
Also, the Phoenician word for Astarte was Europa and this is the same “lady” who sat in Notre Dame, is in the harbour of NYC, is atop the Capitol [Columbia] and appears in many other places, e.g. as the Black Madonna.
Whether we like it or not, there is a triple connection in all of this – the financial/monetary, the political/state and the spiritual. It’s not necessary to understand the latter, only that it is seen as important by these bozos. In other words, they’re deadly serious about this union.
By the way, have you noticed how the EU stars are enclosed between two eyelids these days:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/75217104/Euro-Area-Leaders-Statement
Hmmmm.
How deep does this rabbit hole go? I never know how far is too far in contemplating conspiracy theories, especially those involving the occult.
There’s always one. Comment duly ignored.
Always one what? I don’t believe in the occult at all, but what if our masters do?
“I never know how far is too far in contemplating conspiracy theories, especially those involving the occult.”
How you associate a post about historical events with the occult is beyond me, but as I said, there is always one.
I was responding to jameshigham; the reply didn’t nest properly.
Sorry long post.
http://www.angelfire.com/realm2/coronation/coronation2.html Sword of state mentioned here.
Halsbury’s Laws of England: Local Government says this about the relationship between the Lord Mayor of the City of London (not the Mayor of Greater London) and the Queen:
By ancient custom the Lord Mayor tenders the City Sword to the Sovereign when she enters the City on state occasions, in token acknowledgement of her overriding authority. The Sovereign touches the sword and, by that gesture, returns it to the Lord Mayor with implied permission to carry it before her whilst she is in the City. Also by ancient custom the permission of the Lord Mayor is sought for the passage of troops through the City, and he receives quarterly, under the Sovereign’s sign manual, the password of the Tower of London. As spokesman for the citizens, he is entitled to the right of special access to the Sovereign.
Having seen that Cameron used his veto I noticed how unhappy he looked and the strain on his face. He’s never that wrinkled or constrained. It actually looked as if he were caught between a Rock and Hard place in his photos. I figured he had been slapped ( metaphorically) by the City of London saying no can do; You have to veto this or we’ll cause trouble and then the people will know exactly what kind of filthy EU shill you are Cameron. Thanks for confirming my suspicions with your theory. Crown dependencies are City of London properties. I read about this division of Crown colonies versus British possessions overseas a few days ago. Dont ask me where.
The whole money as debt thing is explained very nicely in Ellen Hodgsons Ebook on the Web of Debt http://is.gd/DGm0W2 ( will ask you if you want the PDF)
“The system of government-issued tallies kept the British economy stable
and thriving until the mid-seventeenth century, when Oliver Cromwell,
the “Pretender,” needed money to fund a revolt against the Tudor
monarchy”
Nathan Rothschild, who controlled the Bank of England after 1820,
notoriously declared:
I care not what puppet is placed upon the throne of England to
rule the Empire on which the sun never sets. The man who controls
Britain’s money supply controls the British Empire, and I control the
British money supply.
In its 20 June 1934 issue, New Britain magazine of
London cited a devastating assertion by former British Prime
Minister David Lloyd George, that “Britain is the slave of an
international financial bloc.”
And this back in the day of William III and Mary II
William was soon at war with Louis XIV of France. To finance his
war, he borrowed 1.2 million pounds in gold from a group of moneylenders,
whose names were to be kept secret. The money was raised
by a novel device that is still used by governments today: the lenders
would issue a permanent loan on which interest would be paid but the principal
portion of the loan would not be repaid. The loan also came with
other strings attached. They included:
(1) The lenders were to be granted a charter to establish a Bank of
England, which would issue banknotes that would circulate as the
national paper currency.
(2) The Bank would create banknotes out of nothing, with only a
fraction of them backed by coin. Banknotes created and lent to the
government would be backed mainly by government I.O.U.s, which
would serve as the “reserves” for creating additional loans to private
parties.
(3) Interest of 8 percent would be paid by the government on its
loans, marking the birth of the national debt.
(4) The lenders would be allowed to secure payment on the national
debt by direct taxation of the people. Taxes were immediately
imposed on a whole range of goods to pay the interest owed to the
Bank.
Which means that Cameron has to do what the Bank of England says he has to do. Its quite clear. These charters have never been revoked. And the reason why Catholics aren’t allowed on the throne? Its not just because of loyalty to Pope its because the Catholics would have thrown the moneylenders out, of Britain as they had done before.
“After the Bank of England began issuing paper banknotes in the
1690s, the government followed suit by issuing paper tallies against
future tax revenues. Paper was easily negotiable, making the paper
tallies competitive with private banknote money. For the next century,
banknotes and tallies circulated interchangeably; but they were
not mutually compatible means of exchange. The bankers’ paper
money expanded when credit expanded and contracted when loans
were canceled or “called,” producing cycles of “tight” money and
depression alternating with “easy” money and inflation. Yet these
notes appeared to be more sound than the government’s tallies, because
they were “backed” by gold. They appeared to be sound until a
bank’s customers got suspicious and all demanded their gold at the
same time, when there would be a run on the bank and it would have
to close its doors because it did not have enough gold to go around.
Meanwhile, the government tallies were permanent money that remained
stable and fixed. They made the bankers’ paper money look
bad, and they had to go.
The tallies had to go for another reason. King William’s right to
the throne was disputed, and the Dutch moneylenders who backed
him could be evicted if the Catholics got back in and forbade
moneylending again. To make sure that did not happen, the
moneylenders used their new influence to discount the tallies as money
and get their own banknotes legalized as the money of the realm. The
tallies were called “unfunded” debt, while the Bank of England’s paper
notes were euphemistically labeled “funded” debt. Modern economic
historians call this shift a “Financial Revolution.” According to a
scholarly article published at Harvard University in 2002, “Tallies anddepartmental bills were issued to creditors in anticipation of annual
tax revenues but were not tied to any specific revenue streams; hence
they were ‘unfunded.’” When debt was “funded,” on the other hand,
“Parliament set aside specific revenues to meet interest payments, a
feature that further enhanced confidence in lending to the
government.”
What seems to have been overlooked is that until the midseventeenth
century, the tallies did not need to be “funded” through
taxes, since they were not debts. They were receipts for goods and
services, which could be used by the bearers in the payment of taxes. It
was because the tallies were accepted and sometimes even required in
the payment of taxes that they retained a stable value as money. Before
Cromwell’s Revolution, the king did not need to borrow, because he could
issue metal coins or wooden tallies at will to pay his bills. The Harvard
authors present a chart showing that in 1693, 100 percent of the
government’s debt was “unfunded” (or paid in government tallies).
“By the 1720s,” they wrote, “over 90 percent of all government
borrowing was long term and funded. This, in a nutshell, was the
Financial Revolution.” In a nutshell, the “Financial Revolution”
transferred the right to issue money from the government to private bankers.
In the end, the tallies met the same fate as the witches – death by
fire. The medieval “witches” were mainly village healers, whose natural
herbs and potions competed with the male-dominated medical profession
and papal church. According to some modern estimates, nine
million women were executed as witches for practicing natural herbal
medicine and “occult” religion. The tallies were similarly the money
of the people, which competed with the money of the usury bankers
In 1834, after the passage of certain monetary reform acts, the tally
sticks went up in flames in a huge bonfire started in a stove in the
House of Lords. In an ironic twist, the fire quickly got out of control,
and wound up burning down both the Palace of Westminster and the
Houses of Parliament. It was symbolic of the end of an equitable era
of trade, with the transfer of power from the government to the Bank”
I have read (some of) the directives and the debates in EU and UK Parliament as recorded in Hansard re Amending Article 136 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU, Official Journal of the EU L 91/1 6.4.2011. And, as this was dealt with at the first quarter of the year I simply cannot come to terms with why Mr Cameron walked away from what was “on the table” at that point in time, (A treaty change) with an emphatic “NO”.
I am aware that his “NO” may well have allowed the remaining representatives to then proceed with what they actually wanted, the ESM Treaty of which there is no way can this Country become a party to it, at least, not as long as our Government wants to remain within the confines of our own Common Law Constitution and also “the Crown” and continue to allegedly govern this Country for which we pay them to do by part, through our taxes.
Printed in the UK House of Lords Paper 8 March 2011 and published 11 March 2011
it makes clear that “We agree with the Government’s view that it is in the UK’s interests to support a stable and prosperous euro area. The UK will not be part of the new permanent crisis resolution mechanism. We note, however, that participating Member States have decided that such a mechanism is necessary to safeguard the stability of the euro area.
24. The proposed Treaty amendment will not transfer any powers from the UK to the EU, or result in any financial implications for the UK. We therefore support the Government’s intention to vote in favour of this amendment in the European Council.”
So, what is your take on what it was all about? To claw back some of those that voted for him at the last General election? Or what exactly?
Anne,
If you click through to my dissection of the ESM treaty http://www.parker-joseph.com/pjcjournal/2011/08/31/esm-treaty-eu-commission-mafia-at-work/ and then look at the comments, you will see a more detailed Hansard account. (which perhaps I need to bring up as an edit addition here).
It is clear that whilst the UK have agreed to the ESM Treaty in Council, they have not introduced the necessary legislation in Parliament in order to ratify it. No do I believe that there is any intention in doing so for the reasons given in this post above.
I do think that Cameron tried to extract further guarantees from the colleagues (http://www.parker-joseph.com/pjcjournal/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Uk-09-Dec-2011-01-01.pdf) when asked when he will ratify ESM along with the amendments put forward by Sarkozy and Merkel for more budget discipline, but in the end told the group No amendment and No ratification. That in effect I think may well be his ‘veto’.
There are many forces at work here of course, not just the Corpn of CoL, but also the constitutional pressures being placed upon him from his own Minister for Justice but also party pressures to be seen to be doing something to raise his own ‘eurosceptic’ profile.
It would not surprise me to also learn that in his meeting with Merkel the day before, he reached some kind of agreement to be the one to pull the plug on this plan, because as we already know Germany cannot ratify the ESM either, having been banned from doing so by her own constitutional court (conveniently overlooked by the MSM), but do not want to be seen as the ones doing the blocking. Would probably not go down well with the markets.
As we know from experience, the colleagues often get one country or another to say no to a proposal when the approval of the full 27 are required, so that the dissenters do not have to put their heads above the parapet, as in the case of our own cancelled referendum on the constitutional treaty after Holland and France voted NO.
“Germany cannot ratify the ESM either, having been banned from doing so by her own constitutional court”… Well, well, well….. I had no idea
The German constitutional court has only allowed German participation in the EFSF because it is temporary. Their ruling insisted that there could be no permanent EU mechanism such as the ESM or Eurobonds as this would violate the sovereignty of the German republic.
The view is that any permanent overarching economic mechanism such as the ESM that could right this crisis would require a popular referendum to (more or less) abolish Germany as an individual state altogether.
so Merkel has the same problem as Cameron.
I’m truly fascinated by the Corporation of London and the Crown Corporation. Before recently I was having a hard time understanding how small groups of people managed to control so much. Now I know these little loop holes in our system that we are not told about.
Have you also read up on the 2 separate legal entities in America? The United States being a corporation which runs the United States of America? It’s unreal how much has been accomplished for total control right under our noses.
You said:
Cromwell had debts to ‘Dutch’ bankers…
I say:
I think that you have to clarify that at this time the jews were banished from England and Cromwell took loans from them as their world bank was based at that time in Amsterdam. The jews financed the ‘new model army’ and as a result the ban from jews entering England was lifted and remains so to this day.
This must throw some light on the crown’s status today if those jewish loans are still being repaid…he who has eyes to see…..
So if Cromwell hadn’t won the Rothschilds would not have been able to infiltrate the Bank of England?
To be honest I don’t think it matters who won, England was broke so money had to be raised from somewhere. Incidently, it was not a Rothschild that the money was raised from, their involvement comes much later.
This is a topic that I touched on recently on my blog. I am truly pleased to note that you are of the same opinion. However, you have explained this in much more detail and clarity than I have. The Isle of Man’s constitutional position as a Crown Dependency has been described as “complex.” I wonder just how complex it is?
If you read my latest post ‘Why the City of London will not be controlled from Brussels’
http://www.parker-joseph.com/pjcjournal/2011/12/16/why-the-city-of-london-will-not-be-controlled-from-brussels/
it will go some way to give you that explanation, also why the IoM, Jersey & Guernsey have not been allowed to be members of the EU by the UK Govt.
So it’s all about debt. We all know debt = money but I had no idea that the entire nation is really being held at gun point by international bankers. If the loans were to stop being paid back would we the public even know about it? Would it be possible for them to place their people as the board of directors of the Crown Corporation?
H.A.A.R.P,
Its always been about debt, its how the British Empire grew, and funded itself.
If we stopped paying would the people know about it? I doubt it, how many know where the real power lies at present.
As for the placing of people, I really don’t know, its a very tight club, members of guilds, aldermen etc.
So how does the following fit into what has been said so far?
In 1213 King John of Briton give away his whole Kingdom to the Pope when he signed the Treaty of Verona in fear of being excommunicated.
So as far as I know Briton still belong to the Vatican of Rome.
As there appears to be no copy of the treaty of 1213 and/or the Elements of Ecclesiastical Law Vol.1 53-54 covering that period anywhere on the internet it would be impossible to say what the implications are.
Do we have proof positive of the signing of this treaty, if so, where is the historical record and the copy of the Treaty? did the treaty refer to the Kingdom of England absolute or the Spiritual/Ecclesiastical Kingdom, and if such a treaty existed, I would assume that such treaty would have been withdrawn and rescinded by Henry VIII when he broke from Rome.
Let us not forget that in the time of 1213, Rome claimed that the Kingdom of God was alone superior to the Kingdoms of men, and as Rome claims to be the Kingdom of God on earth, so also claimed the right to appoint and confirm Kings, the Kings of men.
Henry VIII would most definitely have broken that cycle, and you can see that when he claimed that right back by breaking away from Rome and setting up his own church he did so by including for the first time in his Realm of Peers both the Spiritual and Temporal.
I believe this is discussed in the book called Empire of the City, but it’s been a long time since I read it so I might be wrong.