DID ELIZABETH WINDSOR CONSPIRE TO END BRITAIN?

DID ELIZABETH WINDSOR CONSPIRE TO END BRITAIN ?

(too old to reply)

Have we been sold out at the very top ?

The following article from Bob Lomas, Chairman and founder of the Magna Carta Society, is a disturbing discussion of the role of Elizabeth Windsor in the slow but unrelenting surrender of Britain to the Franco-German Axis, which raises very serious questions indeed about her conduct over the last 30 years.

In 1972 it might have seemed important to engage with the EEC and seek to control the re-emergence of Germany.
And it might have been argued then that we needed privileged access to the European market, over which they were building malicious and exclusive control.

That both of these objectives have failed miserably - and that we have lost much and gained nothing - as we predicted then and have since been repeatedly proved correct - puts a different light on the matter today, as it has done, and beyond question, for a very long time.

But if she was playing a "long card" reluctantly to gain some hoped for benefits then, why did she see fit to make Heath and the EU fifth columnist, Sainsbury, members of the Order of the Garter, which is in her own gift ?

This article makes stunning accusations about the role of the Windsors and is worth reading right through to the end.

Note especially that the EEC was designed originally by the Nazis in 1942 - and the chilling claim by Elizabeth Windsor in her Paris speech that she and France had agreed to combine their political and economic futures !!!

Alignment with France might be seen as a counter weight to the now re-arming Germany - but I do not think that the British electorate has, or ever would, agree to the surrender of our political or economic independence to a malicious enemy like France - or that such a move is necessary to control Germany. It looks far more like a back door sell out to the "EU" - the most dangerous enemy of the Anglo-American alliance and the only guarantee of our impendence - to say nothing of our liberty and democracy - which it has underpinned for all of the last 60 years.

Readers must make up their own minds about the arguments put forward by Bob Lomas in this article, but in the absence of any meaningful response to the 100's of thousands of letters, petitions and representations made to the Palace over the last 30 years, all of which have been met with stone walling, prevarication and vague side stepping, his arguments are powerful and must be considered.

Please take the time to read it right through ......


2005, THE END OF A NATION.

The Europaisch Wirtshaftsgemienshaft, ( The European Economic Community ), was drawn up in Berlin in 1942. It was the plan for the uniting of Europe into one Reich of regions on the German Lander system once Germany had won the war.

In 1945 Germany lost her challenge to establish the Thousand Year Reich by force of arms , but quickly engaged in a new initiative to realise her dream, this time utilising her more subtle skills, intrigue, duplicity and deceit, skills the Germanic people have excelled at for centuries. By 1951 Germany had established the European Coal and Steel Community. In 1957 the Europaisch Wirtshaftsgemienshaft was resurrected, slightly restructured but basically the same in principle, under The Treaties of Rome. The Reich was again emerging as Germany's WW II allies and sympathisers, Spain, Italy and much of France fell back into line behind her.

Despite the Allies virtual annihilation of Germany, the spirit of the Reich had once more risen like the Phoenix from the ashes as it did following the Great War, and just as she ignored the Treaty of Versailles in the 1920/30s, Germany is re-arming on an escalating scale, in total defiance of the constraints imposed by the Allies in 1945. At present Germany has a standing army of 300,000, she has retained national service and so has as many again in reserve, these include fighter pilots which she has been training in numbers far exceeding her defence needs for over twenty five years. Germany is developing a new super tank and U-Boats, and shows every indication that she is developing nuclear weapons.

(Our intelligence is that Germany already had them. W)

German politicians are now openly stating their intention to become a major military power in the world.

In 1972 Queen Elizabeth II, who the British people had elected to be the official Governor and political leader of the nation, used her position to surrender the supremacy of her office as Sovereign Head of State, the supremacy of the peoples laws and the supremacy of the peoples sovereignty to the Europaisch Wirtshaftsgemienshaft. It is not without significance that the Europaisch Wirtshaftsgemienshaft when resurrected was referred to internationally as the European Economic Community, arguably for the same reasons that the name of the Royal family was changed from Saxe-Coburg-Gotha to Windsor.

In 1972 the Queen gave Royal Assent to the European Communities Act, which agreed to the surrender of the peoples sovereignty and the supremacy of their laws to the Community. The Queen then commanded her plenipotentiaries, Heath, Hurd and Ripon to go to Brussels to sign the Treaty of Accession to the Treaty of Rome on her behalf, for which she later honoured them. As the Treaty of Rome is very clear in its design to do away with the nation states of Europe, and the principle that national law will always be subordinate to Community law, the Queen could not have used her authority to sanction this action of capitulation, for by so doing she would have exceeded her lawful authority.

Never the less, the Queen used her position to surrender her governance of the nation to an unelected and unaccountable foreign power, a third party bearing no allegiance to the Crown or the British people. Parliament could not have undertaken this action on its own, for had it attempted so to do those involved would have instantly become subject to the Treason Felony Act 1848, under which it is an offence to engage in, even to discuss, any action which might endanger or disrupt the Constitution. There can be no doubt that the Queen knew exactly what she was doing, for there had been much discussion in both Houses on the issues involved going back to the mid 1960s, and the Queen would have been kept fully informed on all such discussions.

As Constitutional Head of State the Queen would also have been fully aware of our principle constitutional documents, especially the Magna Carta 1215, the Bill of Rights 1689 and the Act of Supremacy 1559, which states: "...all usurped and foreign power and authority...may forever be clearly extinguished, and never used or obeyed in this realm...no foreign prince, person, prelate, state or potentate...shall at any time after the last day of this session of Parliament, use, enjoy or exercise any manner of power, jurisdiction, superiority, authority, pre-eminence or privilege...within this realm, but that henceforth the same shall be clearly abolished out of this realm for ever."

Over the past thirty years the Queen has upheld her decision of 1972 by giving her Royal Assent to the subsequent European treaties, in particular the Treaty of Maastricht which purports to make the Queen a citizen of the EU, as was announced in the house of Commons by Prime Minister Major, a statement which under normal circumstances would have been considered treasonous. Just as Heath was not impeached for his treasonous actions, or his committing perjury in the House of Commons in 1972, Major was not impeached for his statement, which must raise the question, is the Queen still Monarch and Governor of this nation, for clearly no one can be both Monarch and citizen at the same time.

When in 1972 the Queen surrendered the supremacy of her office to the EU, her action was in effect her abdication of office, there can be no sovereign head of state in a country that is no longer sovereign, and no official governor in a nation that is no longer self governing. This being so, it suggests that the Queen has for the past thirty years engaged in a sham, a charade to give the impression that nothing has changed, while all the time  Parliament, acting as an administration for the EU, has been preparing for the eventual destruction of all that we are as a nation state. It must not be over looked that according to the Bill of Rights 1689 and the Coronation Oath Act 1688 the Monarch is the Governor of the nation, and that the government formed from a political party of the peoples choice is subordinate to the Governor who retains the power of governance on the peoples behalf, thus the people retain the supreme power in the land.

It is the obligation of the Monarch, being the physical embodiment of the peoples sovereignty, to uphold the peoples power in Parliament by exercising the power of veto vested in her by the people at the time of her Coronation. With the Monarch removed, be it by her abdication, deposition or mediatisation, the people have no means of exercising their sovereign supremacy over a despotic and dictatorial Parliament, and this it seems is the present situation. Clearly we now have a subjected and politicised judiciary, which openly claims in the courts that Parliament is above and beyond the constraint of the law, ignoring its own oaths of allegiance and the Coronation Oath.

It is upon the office of the Monarch therefore that the whole structure of our Constitution and rule of law hinges. Under the present and prevailing circumstances we must seriously consider the position of the Queen according to available evidence. The question arising is, in 1972 was the Queen deposed, mediatised or did she abdicate? Bearing in mind that the Queen took a solemn oath to govern us according to our laws and customs, which essentially would mean upholding and maintaining our Constitution and the supremacy of our laws, the Queen could not have lawfully acted as she has done over the past thirty years were she still Monarch, during which time it is claimed she has given legitimacy to Acts of Parliament which are not only illegitimate according to our laws but subject to the Treason Acts, most pertinently the Civil Contingencies Act, which gives the government the right to suspend all our constitutional rights and liberties.

It does not seem likely or feasible that the Queen was forcibly deposed or mediatised by Parliament, or some conspiratorial force within Parliament, for at the time of her Coronation we the people vested in her enormous powers to enable her to protect us from a despotic Parliament. These powers include her right to dismiss her ministers and dissolve Parliament,
and to ensure she has the backing to so act we made her Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces which takes an oath of allegiance to her and her alone, making it completely separate from Parliament.

From the available evidence therefore it would seem that in 1972 the Queen abdicated of her own free will, and since that time has acted complicitly with unlawful Parliaments to destroy us as a nation state in the process of building the new Reich under the Trojan Horse disguise of the EU. Although this may seem totally inconceivable, the truth of it may be found in two of the Queen's recent speeches. In her Paris speech the Queen stated that she and France had agreed to combine their political and economic futures.

The Queen used the word "we", but she could not have been speaking for the British people who have left her in no doubt that the majority wish to leave the EU, and she is fully aware that we did not have any say in whether or not we wished to join it in the first place.

In her more recent State Opening of Parliament speech, the Queen stated that her government would be preparing for a referendum on whether or not we should accept the EU constitution which if accepted would completely and irrevocably destroy the supremacy of our laws, the very laws she swore to uphold in the sight of God. As any action that might disrupt the Constitution would be subject to the Treason Felony Act 1848, the Queen was saying that she and her government will be acting complicitly in an act of treason against the state, and that the people are to be invited to participate in an act of treason against themselves.

Should there be any doubt about it, one must consider this, the words of the EU Constitution - Article (I-10) are ground breaking because of the first two words:

"The Constitution and law adopted by the Union's Institutions in exercising competences conferred on it shall have primacy over the law of the Member States".

Winston Churchill once spoke of the British Empire and the Commonwealth lasting for a thousand years. It did not. Hitler spoke of the thousand year Reich, which was most unlikely. We as a nation have lasted for a thousand years, but unless we can now clarify and expose the present true position of the Queen, and bring to heel our unlawful and duplicitous Parliament, short of civil unrest possibly leading to civil war, this nation is unlikely to last another decade as a nation state.

Bob Lomas. The Magna Carta Society. December 2004.