Gibraltar Messenger

The Coronation Oath: A Mighty Trojan Horse

VT’s Professor Gloria Moss reveals more UK Secrets behind the Royal Family Curtain by Gloria Moss PhD (with added hyperlinks).

The secret powers of the recently published Oath

by Professor Gloria Moss PhD

The text that Charles will add his signature to on Saturday was published recently and it offers the people of Britain and the Commonwealth some extraordinary powers.  For, although academics at University College London’s constitution unit state that the oath is of overwhelmingly ‘symbolic significance,’ (2022, p.10), a report by the House of Commons from May this year states that the oath is the only part of the ceremony that is required by law.  The oath is in fact binding, and a contract with the people of the realms that fall under its jurisdiction.

So, as millions are pinned to their television screens for the lavish spectacle, one conservatively costing the British taxpayer £100 million (twice the equivalent sum spent on his mother’s coronation), they might like to serve as witnesses to three aspects of the oath. One is the undertaking that Charles will make to govern according to the ‘laws and customs’ of the relevant realms and territories.  A second is to do the utmost in his power to ‘maintain the laws of God’ and a third.  The third aspect to look out for is whether Charles signs the oath below the text as people around the world do, or whether he does as Elizabeth II did and signs her signature above the text.

A word on each of these and the secret power that they offer the peoples of Britain and the Commonwealth.

Laws and customs

The monarch’s commitment to observe the ‘laws and customs’ of the realms goes back to King Edward II who is the earliest English coronation for which we have an official record.  Not only that, but Edward II’s oath largely remained the format for a coronation oath for nearly four hundred, and these words were included also in the oath sworn by Elizabeth II.  Why are these words significant?

Well, according to the most authoritative jurist of the thirteenth century, Henry de Bracton, ‘the English hold many things by custom which they do not hold by law’ and ‘kings need only to have allowed the custom for it to be granted’.

In saying this, Henry de Bracton brings the Magna Carta within the orbit of ‘customs’ and in so doing, asserts people’s rights as ‘freemen’ alongside their right to a trial by jury, a right specified in Article 39 of the Magna Carta [Article 39 (1215) – [Article 29 (1297*)].  What is more, Magna Carta allows, in Article 61, for the lawful rebellion of 25 barons, a right invoked in 2001 and still in force.

The bottom line? People in Britain and in the Commonwealth realms can take Charles at his word and assert their right to a trial by jury and to their rights as freemen of the land.  This means that obligations addressed to the so-called legal fiction (the all capitals name that corporatises people rather than addresses them as living beings) are legally rendered null and void.

This means that any attempt by the Ministry of Justice in Britain to nullify the freeman of the land philosophy is itself negated by the King’s oath.

The Laws of God

So, the monarch’s undertaking to observe the laws and customs of the realms confirms the power not only of the Magna Carta but also of Common law and people’s status as free men and women.

For hundreds of years, monarchs have sworn these words but perhaps now, at a pivotal point in human history, the people can finally use this aspect of the monarch’s oath to assert their sovereign status as living men and women.  What follows from this is tantamount to the legalisation of civil disobedience, whether in the form of non-payment of Council Tax, income tax, or penalty charges, the first two of which must legally require contractual consent and the last of which requires to be heard via a jury trial.

And there is much more besides that they can use.  For, a monarch swearing to observe ‘the laws of God’ is swearing to follow the injunctions set down in the first given books of the Bible and this has three important consequences.

Firstly, man-made legislation is strictly prohibited and you can refer to this in these sections of Deuteronomy:

  • 4:2 Ye shall not add to the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the Commandments of the Lord your God which I COMMAND you.
  • 11:1 Therefore thou shalt love the Lord thy God, and keep His charge, and His Statutes, and His Judgments, and His Commandments, always.
  • 12:32 What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.

The force of these words is that the monarch is in breach of their oath the moment that they add their signature to any new statute.  All the kings and queens who have added their signatures to pieces of legislation have broken their oaths and ceased to be legitimate monarchs.  With that, the line of descent, for example from Elizabeth II to Charles, is an illegitimate one.

At the same time, all aspects of government, whether the legislature, the executive, or the judiciary, all of which act under the authority of the monarch.

Now to the second point.  Deuteronomy outlaws the practice of usury as you can read here:

  • 23:19 Thou shalt not lend upon usury/interest to thy brother; usury of money, usury of victuals, usury of anything that is lent upon usury.

So any monarch who allows the continuing practice of usury in their realms is in breach of their oath.  The people would be within their rights to declare that the monarch has breached their oath were they not to take a stand against usury.

The third consequence that flows from a monarch’s commitment to observing ‘the laws of God concerns their relationship with foreign powers.  Deuteronomy stipulates that a monarch who hands the reigns of power over to an authority who is a ‘stranger’, in other words, someone who is not from your country, would be in dereliction of their duties to God:

  • 17:15 Thou shalt in any wise set [him] king over thee, whom the Lord thy God shall choose: [one] from among thy brethren shalt thou set a king over thee: thou mayest NOT set a stranger over thee, which [is] not thy brother.

This would prohibit Charles III from working closely with any powers outside of Britain, including the World Economic Forum (WEF), the WHO, and of course the UN.  Were he to do this, then the people would be within their rights to claim that the monarch had broken their oath to the people and was now an illegitimate monarch.  This would not only end his moral claim to the throne but as with the other two points, bring to an end all aspects of government, whether the legislature, the executive, or the judiciary, all of which act under the authority of the monarch.

Final point: the signature

In June 2022, the signed coronation oath of the Queen was digitised for the first time to mark the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee.  As you can see from the image of the oath, the Queen signs the oath above the text of the document, rather than below it as would be customary in a legal document.  There are compelling reasons for signing below since doing this attests to the person’s willingness to abide by the terms in the body of the text.  Moreover, signing below a piece of text prevents new text from being added subsequently.

I have written elsewhere about the many anomalies in Queen Elizabeth II’s signed coronation oath but when it comes to Charles III’s Coronation Oath, you may want to observe during the ceremony where Charles places his signature.  If it is above the text, as with the Queen’s signature, then you rightly ask whether Charles has entered into a contract with the people of Britain and the Commonwealth and whether he is their rightful king.  As with the case of the three points above, a failure to create a valid contract with the people nullifies his claim to be king and, with that, undermines the judiciary, the legislature, and the executive.

The coronation chair

There is of course also the vexed question of the wooden coronation chair.  Since the 13th century, British monarchs have been crowned on a chair containing the Stone of Scone seized in 1296 by England’s king Edward I from Scotland’s Scone Abbey following his victory at the Battle of Dunbar. However, on 25 December 1950, four students, all Scottish nationalists, took The Stone from Westminster Abbey on 25 Dec 1950 and returned it to Scotland in the trunk of a car.  One of the four, Ian R. Hamilton, subsequently a Q.C., maintained in three of his books that the stone weighed 4cwt (458lbs.) but that the stone in Westminster Abbey, subsequently moved to Edinburgh Castle in 1996, only weighed 3cwt (336lbs.).

In September 2022, Historic Environment Scotland confirmed that the object described as the Stone of Destiny in the Crown Room at Edinburgh Castle would be transferred to London for use in Charles’s coronation. With possible discrepancies in the weight and also the colour of the stone (some say that the original stone was black, not the current pale colour) doubts remain that the Stone of Scone was used in Elizabeth’s coronation—and now about to be used in Charles’—is actually the genuine article.

The monarch: a vital check against tyrannous government

Breaches of contract by the monarch might lead to strong anti-monarchist sentiment where in fact it would be more productive to maintain a monarchy, with all that it offers in terms of a check against tyrannous government.  So rather than dispensing with monarchy, a national debate could take place on the selection of a new monarch willing to do his or her utmost to respect the laws and customs of Britain and the Commonwealth as well as the laws of God.

Source: Veteran’s Today – The Coronation Oath on 6 May: A Mighty Trojan Horse

* According to the British Library, clauses 39 & 40 of the 1215 charter became clause 29 in the 1297 charter. It is the latter that is more commonly quoted.

The Laws of God – The New Song

About Author:  Professor Gloria Moss PhD is the author of over seventy peer review journal and conference papers.  She is the author of eight books, many published by Routledge and Palgrave Macmillan.  Her latest book, written with Katherine Armitage, is Light Bulb Moments and the Power of Critical Thinking (2023), published by Truth University Press, the publisher also of The Dark Side of Academia:  How Truth is Suppressed.