Another Perspective on the Treaty of 1213

Just some facts for your consideration regarding your "enslavement" to the Pope. Starting with the Conquest of England, duke William (the conqueror)won the throne of England by defeating Harold the usurper in 1066. Williams claim was by blood and by promise from Edward the Confessor. He did not "steal" the Crown and was, after beating Harold, elected by the national council, he swore a coronation oath to the people and became King of the English, not King of the soil.He introduced an alien feudal system where by those who held land had to suply Knights for the defence of the country.He was the highest in the chain but did not literally own all the land,even having a Great Inquisition (Domesday) to find out who owned what.Mortmain existed in England before William under the name of "folcland", which was land held by a customary right and could not be alienated.

Depts of English Kings have always been their own burden and not a national dept.King John could not give England away to pay his depts, because he sat on the throne and did not own England, this is why he then became a tyrant.He declared himself as owner of the land in violation of the customary law, he may have even threatened the national council to accept him as such, but in England neither does the national council have such an authority to aknowledge a single owner of all England, other than the entire population by jus gentium. Any "treaty" made between King John and a Pope in violation of the customary common law is worthless, because King John being in violation of common law would cease to be lawful and forfeit the crown and government of England. A King can only act under positive laws known as prerogatives, which restrict the powers of a King. The fact that if King John was made a
corporation sole disproves your point, he would have two identities King John a natural person
and King John the Crown and government. Under his natural person their would be no right to
give away his corporate person, his corporate person was made by and belongs to the people
for ever. Even today the Crown corporation owns all the land, which effectively means we the people of England own all the land. So if he made a treaty with the Pope in 1213, the treaty is nugatory, the pope may as well have dealt with the village idiot.

Regarding a peace treaty, if one party is acting under duress, this does not invalidate
the agreement, even though it would with a contract. So when the English nation rose against "Bad" King John the unlawful King, they first gave him a last chance to retake his coronation oath and seal a peace treaty confirming the laws of the land. King John agreed and put his seal to what became the Magna Carta, the fact that the Barons had their swords drawn does not invalidate the treaty, King john had made war on the people and duely surrendered to the people by the peace treaty.So when the Pope, at Johns request, later annulled the treaty,it made no difference what so ever. The Magna Carta has been confirmed some 40 times by English Kings, it is now a customary law to refere to the Magna Carta, Oliver Cromwel cited the Magna Carta in the English civil war, as has Winston Churchil and Elizabeth. II.

You will notice any treaty agreement made between King John and a Pope is not readily
available, well it can not be that lawful then? Any contract King John made with a Pope was under duress because Pope Innocent. III along with the King of France were threatening to attack him, this invalidates a contract. And if these facts do not satisfy then, surely the heir to the throne Henry. VIII ended once and for all any links with a Pope. From when there has been a progression towards the total ban on any King or Queen of England being under any authority of a Pope or Holy Emperor or the See of Rome.

The Declaration of Right 1688 also a treaty agreement,declares the rights of English
subjects not British as you say. Great Britain is a de facto union and "British" subjects are a
false conscience. I do not know where you have seen the Declaration of right, it is rolled up and hidden away. It was written in haste, not realy being in articles and had ink accidently spilled over it so how you manage to know the ending of "Articl III" is a mystery. If you are indeed refering to the Bill of Rights 1689, then it is a greater mystery because Article III decrees that all crown servants must swear an oath of allegiance to the King/Queen, the oath to be sworn denounces the directions of a Pope or the See of Rome, to have our Kings and Queens "deposed or murdered", where Article III ends thus "noe forreign prince person prelate state or potentate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction power superiority pre-eminence or authoritie ecclesiasticall or spiritual, with in this realm"

I am baffled at you version of the ending, but feel you can rest assured no one in
England is a slave of the Pope, nor that the pope owns one scrap of land in England. And I doubt very much if the people of America are "slaves" of the Pope or the See of Rome.But if you are, have no fear we the people of England will help you in your fight for freedom.

Best wishes Bob the freeman of England.

 Filed under: Books / Documents, Treaty of 1213

Comments

You must be logged in to comment

Site Statistics

Posts
21,528
Comments
31,794
Members
24,833