Article-61 – The Reality
Most people are in complete ignorance as to the how and why the Great Charter came into existence. They just focus on knights turning up at Runnymede and asking John to sign it. They have the impression wrongly held that this was a peaceful event – or that events leading up to the signing were just as peaceful.
There are many so-called pacifists that think of “peaceful rebellion” or would rather not use the word rebellion at all – rather choosing the term “dissent.” “the holding or expression of opinions at variance with those commonly or officially held.” If you hold an opinion at variance with the official line – you have no real incentive to make a change.
There are those that would rather focus their efforts on education – it’s like teaching “you are free” but you have to remain in your chains for generation after generation until the entire population has been re-educated. Most people have the view “Yes I accept what you say but to be honest with you I don’t want to do anything that will cause real change. Thankfully there were no pacifists and peace loving hippies at the time of 1512!
The Magna Carta is seen as one of the most influential legal documents in British history. Indeed Lord Denning (1899 -1999) a distinguished British Judge and second only to the Lord Chief Justice as Master of the Rolls, called the document “the greatest constitutional document of all time – the foundation of the freedom of the individual against the arbitrary authority of the despot”. However, its original conception was not nearly as successful.
The Magna Carta, also know as Magna Carta Libertatum (the Great Charter of Freedoms), was so called because the original version was drafted in Latin. It was introduced by some of the most notable barons of the thirteenth century in an act of rebellion against their King, King John I (24 December 1199 – 19 October 1216).
Increased taxes, the Kings’ excommunication by Pope Innocent III in 1209 and his unsuccessful and costly attempts to regain his empire in Northern France had made John hugely unpopular with his subjects. Whilst John was able to repair his relationship with the Pope in 1213, his failed attempt to defeat Phillip II of France in 1214 and his unpopular fiscal strategies led to a baron’s rebellion in 1215.
Whilst an uprising of this type was not unusual, unlike previous rebellions the barons did not have a clear successor in mind to claim the throne. Following the mysterious disappearance of Prince Arthur, Duke of Brittany, John’s nephew and son of his late brother Geoffrey (widely believed to have been murdered by John in an attempt to keep the throne), the only alternative was Prince Louis of France. However, Louis’ nationality (France and England had been warring for thirty years at this point) and his weak link to the throne as husband to John’s niece made him less than ideal.
As a result, the baron’s focused their attack on John’s oppressive rule, arguing that he was not adhering to the Charter of Liberties. This charter was a written proclamation issued by John’s ancestor Henry I when he took the throne in 1100, which sought to bind the King to certain laws regarding the treatment of church officials and nobles and was in many ways a precursor to the Magna Carta.
Negotiations took place throughout the first six months of 1215 but it was not until the baron’s entered the King’s London Court by force on 10 June, supported by Prince Louis and the Scottish King Alexander II, that the King was persuaded to affix his great seal to the ‘Articles of the Barons’, which outlined their grievances and stated their rights and privileges.
This significant moment, the first time a ruling King had been forcibly persuaded to renounce a great deal of his authority, took place at Runnymede, a meadow on the banks of the River Thames near Windsor on 15 June. For their part, the barons renewed their oaths of allegiance to the King on 19 June 1215. The formal document which was drafted by the Royal Chancery as a record of this agreement on 15 July was to become known retrospectively as the first version of the Magna Carta.
It is to the first Magna Carta – which protects all from a tyrannical monarchy which is held up to be the “true” and only valid Magna Carta and can not be revoked by any monarch or parliament “the foundation of the freedom of the individual against the arbitrary authority of the despot.” It meant that no monarch was above the law.
Signing of the Magna Carta:
Whilst both the King and the baron’s had agreed to the Magna Carta as a means of reconciliation, there was still huge distrust on both sides. The baron’s had really wanted to overthrow John and see a new monarch take the throne. For his part John reneged on the most crucial section of the document, now known as Clause 61, as soon as the baron’s left London.
The clause stated that an established committee of barons had the ability to overthrow the King should he defy the charter at any time. John recognised the threat this posed and had the Pope’s full support in his rejection of the clause, because the Pope believed it called into question the authority of not only the King but the Church as well. all monarchs believe that they hold power because they represent god here on earth they have the power of god and are not subject to the earthly dictates of man or Barron.
Sensing the failure of the Magna Carta in curbing John’s unreasonable behaviour the baron’s promptly changed tack and reinitiated their rebellion (an act of armed resistance to an established government or leader) with a view to replacing the monarch with Prince Louis of France, thrusting Britain head long into the civil war known as the First Baron’s War. (1215–17) was a civil war in the Kingdom of England in which a group of rebellious major landowners (commonly referred to as barons) led by Robert Fitzwalter and supported by a French army under the future Louis VIII of France, waged war against King John of England. The war resulted from the king’s refusal to accept and abide by Magna Carta which he had sealed on 15 June 1215, and from the ambitions of the French prince, who dragged the war on after many of the rebels had made peace with John.
So as a means of promoting peace the Magna Carta was a failure, legally binding for only three months. It was not until John’s death from dysentery on 19th October 1216 whilst he was mounting a siege on the East of England that the Magna Carta finally made its mark.
Following fractions between Louis and the English barons, the royalist supporters of John’s son and heir, Henry III, were able to clinch a victory over the barons at the Battles of Lincoln and Dover in 1217. However, keen to avoid a repeat of the rebellion, the failed Magna Carta agreement was reinstated by William Marshal, the young Henry’s protector, as the Charter of Liberties – a concession to the barons. This version of the charter was edited to include 42 rather than 61 clauses, with clause 61 being notably absent.
Note: The Battle of Sandwich, also called the Battle of Dover took place on 24 August 1217 as part of the First Barons’ War. A Plantagenet English fleet commanded by Hubert de Burgh attacked a Capetian French armada led by Eustace the Monk and Robert of Courtenay off Sandwich, Kent. The English captured the French flagship and most of the supply vessels, forcing the rest of the French fleet to return to Calais.
The French fleet was attempting to bring supplies to Prince Louis, later King Louis VIII of France, whose French forces held London at that time. The English vessels attacked from windward, seizing Eustace’s ship, making Robert and the knights prisoner and killing the rest of the crew. Eustace, a notorious pirate, was executed after being taken prisoner. The battle convinced Prince Louis to abandon his effort to conquer England and the Treaty of Lambeth was signed a few weeks later.
The Treaty of Lambeth of 1217, also known as the Treaty of Kingston to distinguish it from the Treaty of Lambeth of 1212, was a peace treaty signed by Prince Louis of France in September 1217 ending the campaign known as the First Barons’ War to uphold the claim by Louis to the throne of England. When the campaign had begun, baronial enemies of the unpopular John, King of England had flocked to the French banner, but after John’s death in 1216, and his replacement by a regent, William Marshall, on behalf of the boy king Henry III, many had moved to the English side. Subsequent defeats at Lincoln in May 1217 and at Dover and Sandwich in August 1217 forced Louis to negotiate.
On reaching adulthood in 1227, Henry III reissued a shorter version of the Magna Carta, which was the first to become part of English Law. Henry decreed that all future charters must be issued under the King’s seal and between the 13th and 15th centuries the Magna Carta is said to have been reconfirmed between 32 and 45 times, having last been confirmed by Henry VI in 1423 – thus forever killing off Article-61.
It is to be noted that this was an armed rebellion a war – in which John had lost – he had lost to a force of an army – his were engaged in fighting in France. The Baron’s would have killed John – but they could find no suitable successor to be a king. Rather than killing John they sort to negotiate with him. John signed – rather be a live king than a dead one. As soon as the Baron’s army had left and gone home – John tossed the Magna Carta out the window – propelling England into a two year bloody war. No monarch has since had an Article-61.
And finally it must be restated that this was an act of Rebellion i.e. an act of armed resistance to an established government or leader. The Baron’s had an army – and by force of arms they thought that they had won the day. It was not a peaceful rebellion it can not be argued that ion – or a group of people dissenting to the established order neither was it an educational endeavour – it was in fact an act of physical rebellion. One more thing armies do not carry placards proclaiming “support this” – or “save that” armies carry weapons and it is by force of weapons that rebellions win the day. And it can not be argued that Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi’s was a purely peaceful rebellion – there were many violent and bloody clashes an uprising which lead to England pulling out of India.
As to the validity of Magna Carta 1215 there is much argument. The original charter can not be revoked as it is a Charter and a binding agreement between the people and the monarch. All subsequent monarchs have either rejected the Charter or have themselves left articles out – the most notable one being Article-61 which gives authority to the people to remove by physical force of arms monarchs which are oppressive or disagreeable. Monarchs are there by the grace of god – not by the consenting grace of the people and monarchs have always insisted that Common Law and Roman Law do not apply to them. They are in effect above the law – Magna Carta 1215 version declared that not even a monarch was above the law – which is why John and subsequent monarchs have rejected it.
In so far as our current monarch “Queen Elizabeth II” far from abiding by Common Law (any version of Magna Carta one chooses) the current monarchy have chosen Roman Law to give validity and continuation to their reign – they are now a “Corporate Sole.” A corporation sole is a legal entity consisting of a single (“sole”) incorporated office, occupied by a single (“sole”) natural person. This allows corporations the monarchy to pass without interval in time from one office holder to the next successor-in-office, giving the positions legal continuity with subsequent office holders having identical powers and possessions to their predecessors.
This means that our current monarchy is not at the mercy of the people – she is not in place with the people’s consent – she is there as a corporate business that will run forever. This means according to Civil or Roman Law she can not be dethroned – and none of her successors can be dethroned. The Queen is relying on Civil or Roman Law not Common Law Magna Carta to stay in office. This means that any legal challenge the current monarch faces in regard to Magna Carta 1215 can be legally rejected. Which is why a peaceful educated protest will not work – one has to overthrow the whole system and not just the monarchy. And that is too profound for some people to grasp – or want to grasp – but it is the real fact of life – if we don’t engage in active rebellion then we will never be free of our chains.
The Question of the Queens coronation oath:
Oaths of allegiance to the Crown are fairly common in British public life and are similar to those in other countries where a declaration of loyalty is made to the state. In order for an oath to be legally effective, it must be administered by a public official. The law creating each public office and describing the duties of the official ordinarily indicates who is authorized to administer the oath of office. A spoken oath is generally sufficient; however, a written and signed oath can be required by law. In the case of our current monarch the official was an archbishop. Oaths are a binding agreement to uphold certain principles and to stick to the truth.
Like all before her the queen took an oath to uphold the customs and common law of the people of England and the Commonwealth – it was tradition – it was what monarchs had done for centuries. However, the monarch was just stepping into place as of “right” in the office of a corporate sole. Of course it was all rather solemn affair – and she was sworn into office by the church – by the grace of god – which appeals to the religious sentiments of those that share such beliefs. She was and is just the current sole person that holds an office in the family business – till she dies or a family member takes on the new role. Her oath to uphold the common laws and customs of the people of England sound a bit hollow when in fact she is just stepping into the family business. Just think of this horror – the Tory Government making itself a corporate sole – then all you pacifists educationalists would be really be in the shit!!!
In the years 2000/2001 many of our aristocracy – life peers – where concerned with our joining the Economic Union – they noticed that it would give our sovereignty up at that we would become without our own laws – no real parliament – and just be an economic region all powers transferred to Brussels – which was in the process of making itself into a legal entity. There would be no Common Law only Civil or Roman Law and all our traditions would be swept away. Joining would mean that the power of the people would be taken from them – they would be just slaves in an economic capitalist system with no chance of “dissent” or “rebellion” the EU army would come in and crush all forms of revolt and hang those that lead the revolt.
So some 60 “Barons” or life-time peers – decided enough was enough and then according to the original Magna Carta of 1215 Article-61 chose four of their number to write to the queen outlining their concerns and asking her not to give the royal seal of approval – giving her 40 days in which to reply.
The queen was advised that as her office was a corporate sole – she would be unaffected by any constitutional changes – her corporate office would still remain in legal force – no matter the political changes that would eventually lead to the non-existence of England – her office as corporate sole would in effect run forever. She replied and was evasive.
So the peers decided to enact Article-61 of the Magna Carta 1215 which calls for the overthrow of the monarchy – an act of rebellion – not dissent or a re-education but a rebellion – to overthrow the monarchy means you have to also overthrow the political system. A rebellion is violent action organized by a group of people who are trying to change the political system in their country.
Today we have the New Chartist Movement (British Constitution Group) that support just “education” and those that support “Practical Lawful Dissent” Most committed members have signed an oath to support Article-61 – but have no intentions to support it – focusing there entire actions on magistrates courts. Their logic for this action is as follows:
All organisations that have a royal charter or take an oath of allegiance to the queen have no validity as there is no monarch having been disposed of under Article-61. A magistrate swears on oath to support the queen – as such according to Article-61 his oath is no longer valid and he/she has no lawful right to judge any man or women. A magistrates court is a corporation – like any other business.
But the magistrate is there by royal approval attested by his sworn oath to the monarch. All Statutes are first “Bills” to which a monarch grants his/her seal of approval (a rubber stamp) and thus with no monarch there are no Bills that have been turned into Statute Law since 2001 or 1953. With no monarch there is no Law – we live in a land of lawless open rebellion – all that applies is the Customs and Common Laws of the People.
This activity against magistrates whilst welcome does not challenge the central issue – the overthrow of the system. All that will be required is a simple change in law – when a magistrate or judge is sworn into office there will be no legal requirement to take an oath of loyalty to a monarch. This would mean the end of such activities as common law Magna Carta 1215 and Article-61 – these would have no legal basis in Civil or Roman Law.
We have seen the monarchy move away from common law to civil or Roman law – we have seen our modern day police force move away from Common Law to Civil or Roman law. If we had stayed in the EU the armed services would have moved away from swearing an oath of support to the monarchy to that of swearing an oath of support to the EU State – which runs on Corporate Civil or Roman Law.
Those in power wish to remain in power. That is a simple fact of life which we must all accept. Our kings and queens have always pondered that old age problem – how not to get kicked out of power. They solved that problem by the use of the corporate sole – which was used by catholic bishops – and today our governments do just the same – how can we retain power? Vote rigging – bribery boundary changes – changes in who can legally vote. We have that age old problem of struggling in a war every 4 years – but a war we never win – whatever the gains we make are quickly lost and once again we find ourselves reduced to near poverty and having to pay and pay and pay and pay – to the point when we all bleed to death.
Our monarch has embraced the Corporation. Our Parliament has embraced the Corporation. Our Justice system has embraced the Corporation. Think about it.
We are constantly in a state of war – our civil rights freedoms and civil liberties are under the constant threat of those that wish to make us slaves to Corporate Law. We have always remained slaves to an aristocracy to a monarchy to corporations that enslave. In he past we had armies that brought about rebellion with the force of arms – those force of arms brought YOU Magna Carta 1215 with Article-61. Yet no one has grasped the nettle of the Corporation which is sweeping away ALL your Common Law Rights and Freedoms all your Common Law Justice.