Pages

Thursday, March 4, 2010

The Treaty of Verona and the Deception That is the Magna Carta.

The article below was written by John Harris and posted on his website TPUC.org. It invites a number of conclusions to be drawn. Firstly that this country has been essentially Vatican controlled since 1213. This isn't the first time I've seen such a suggestion being made and it certainly ties in with others who claim evidence of the Vatican playing a pivotal, if not the pivotal, role in the New World Order agenda. Indeed, it seems more than likely that the Vatican's invisible rule is exercised through the Crown or City of London. The Rothschild banking interests being the primary vehicle.

The second significant thing this article appears to show is that the Magna Carta is, perhaps, not all that it seems. It's intrinsically linked to the Treaty of Verona, signed in 1213, and is central to the control system this country has lived under for a number of years. The signing of the Lisbon Treaty looks like nothing more than a move from one system of control to another, though still under the guiding hand of the Vatican. There are some researchers who have made a strong case that the EU is little more than the 'Holy Roman Empire' reborn. John's article certainly appears to confirm this.

What of the Monarchy? At first sight it could be argued that this also shows that they are powerless pawns in the agenda. I don't think so. The British Royal family have shown no signs of resisting at any stage of the development of the EU we see today and evidence abounds that they are willing participants in the New World Order agenda. Researchers suggest that the Roman Catholic church was a creation of the bloodline families of the Roman Empire. The Saxe-Coburg-Gotha's currently in residence at Buckingham Palace are members of the European bloodlines (black nobility) who descend from those Roman families and others who have ruled the world in secret for, perhaps, thousands of years.

Does this mean our constitution as a whole is flawed? Certainly Magna Carta was an integral part of it. If it is then what next? I've always felt that reasserting our constitution after withdrawing from the EU was only a first step in restoring, or indeed, claiming our sovereign rights as free people. We need to look objectively at our constitution and correct whatever flaws it may have. Nobody can deny us our true sovereignty and that includes our sovereign right to create our own currency (means of exchange) free from debt. I also fail to see how the present Royal family or the institution of the Monarchy can survive a critical evaluation. It's time to dismantle the various systems of control we are enslaved under. It won't be easy and there will be many, who find security in their prisons, whose instinct will be to resist. But it has to be done if we are to be truly free. The alternative is a New World Order where a criminal and likely Satanic few rule over us in a 21st century feudal nightmare.


The contract called the Treaty of Verona – the slavery foundation stone and the deception of Magna Carta by John Harris.


Before we look at magna carta (the script) let us go back two years previous to 1213 and the contract called the treaty of verona. King John, as most kings tried to no avail to establish as William the conqueror did a dictatorship. This seems to be the model to follow and William set a precedent that all kings and queens would to try to follow, or at least they would try to push the boundaries further set out in the doctrine written by the church of rome. The pope’s main goal was to try and control all the lands of the world under the doctrine he is the ‘vicar of christ’, using the myth of jesus christ to achieve this. Placing him at the top of the chain and by using the myth to his and who he serves benefit, he would proclaim that he was the owner of all lands on behalf of jesus, until such time as jesus would return and he would supposedly hand it all back to him. Contained within this is every living breathing creature including us - basically in servitude to his wishes and all he commands? This was done through a legal system called canon law, the law of contracting that works through fiction, as it itself, is only fiction. So to set the stage we have the pope at the top of the chain supposedly owning all land and everything upon it and canon law as the script for the play, and the principles of the script to be; that the principles of religion contribute most powerfully to keep nations in the state of passive obedience including their kings and queens.  In being the ‘vicar of christ’ the number one law to be used at first was the fear of god and this is exactly what was used against king John to make him circum to the popes wishes.

When looking at King John there are so many conflicting versions of history surrounding the events and the life of John, almost to the point that most versions contradict themselves? It would seem that yes John and England were in some financial difficulties arising from the constant need to maintain lands in other countries and the control of them, but more to the point that there was always someone wishing to take the throne of this country away from whoever held it at the time. The basis of the problem seems to be that John did not want to accept Stephan Langton as Archbishop the Vatican’s representative, installed by pope innocent III to rule England under religious doctrine as Holy See. (canon law) Did John realise he was just to be a front man with everything being controlled from the shadows? John in effect was to become a slave to Stephan Langton and I am sure John released this and of course no king of England could become a slave in his own land….what would become of his status? John thwarted the pope on this and got himself excommunicated, which to John being a very holy man in fear of god, was a very bad thing to happen - in fact the only card the pope needed to play. John, as his brother Richard I had done, had invoked the law of mortmain, being brought in by Richard when he was crowned for the second time after being held captive for 7 years by the czar of Germany. One of the agreements and part of the contract for his release was that Richard would install canon law on being crowned, to maintain what William had started. John invoked mortmain so no one could pass land on to the church or anyone else without the king’s permission, in some ways I see what John was trying to do, although historians have masked this fact deliberately – maybe a vain attempt to protect this island on behalf of who he served: us. But it still remains that the law of mortmain was to be used as a very bad devise and still is today and would serve the pope well, but it seems John was forced into a predicament and used what he had at his disposal. It seems without mortmain the king would lose all the land he controlled. The Vatican did not like this as they were losing control of lands as many under the fear of god were giving their lands to the church. The church had to devise a way to maintain the lands would always be theirs and they would maintain control. John was the perfect candidate because of his religious nature and the excommunication devise worked perfectly to achieve this, with the added bonus that Stephen Langton would be in control and John would circum to this. The pope needed to cast in stone or at least on paper a contract with John that would be everlasting that would hand over everything including lands and chattels (us) to the supremacy of the pope and the church of rome. 


When John was excommunicated this affected this very religious man to such an extent it is said he went on bended knee and submitted to the popes supremacy to be absolved of excommunication. John handed over title to his kingdoms at the time which consisted of England and Ireland to the pope and all chattels as vassals, which means someone who is holding a fief (a piece of land held under the feudal system) who owes allegiance and service to a feudal lord. The pope was setting himself up as the ultimate lord on behalf of the corporation known as the church of Rome, the greatest conquest that netted the pope the place needed to take the rest of the world under an empire that he represented, an empire that was to become the biggest corporation in the world. John swore submission and loyalty to the pope under the delusion that if he didn’t he would be excommunicated again, and to John this was worse than death of the body or anything else on this earth that could be done to him. The threat of eternal damnation was enough for John to circum to the wishes and desires of a man pretending to be a god on earth, a land lord John would worship as all of religious men, women and children have been deceived into doing. This is the ultimate deception, the ultimate lie relying on a myth, but was so strong in its devious nature that a man would surrender anything it requires to be surrendered – as when you join the ‘order of St John of Jerusalem’ better known by their nick name ‘the knights templar’. 


Albeit reluctantly John accepted Stephen Langton as archbishop of Canterbury, knowing full well that the new archbishop was in control of the country and truly ‘ruled’, for John had offered a vassals bond (contract) of fealty (a loyalty someone owes to a lord or sovereign) and homage (a disposition or tendency to yield to the will of another) to the pope and the pope’s servants, in other words to the CEO of the corporation and the CEO’s directors. It is recorded in history that in July of 1213 John was absolved of excommunication at Winchester by the newly appointed ‘ruler’ Stephen Langton after becoming the new archbishop of Canterbury. On October 3rd 1213 John placed this island and every land across the world and the men, women and children of those lands in the hands of slavers and the biggest slave corporation in the world forever, by the ratification of the Treaty of Verona and by doing so he surrendered this island to the pope as vicar of christ who has claimed ownership of everyone and everything. Through the deception of religion and the lies it is based upon and perpetuates, from that moment in history we all became slaves to those lies and the construct it created, known as the commercial construct, in other words the world as we know it and all it has to offer. 


The pope realized after a while, and only a short while, that in essence because the contract was between himself and John then the only people that could ever break the contract were descendants, heirs and successors doing the same in the same positions i.e. successive popes or successive kings and queens of England. Although he had manipulated John, he knew which is obvious, that John would not live forever, so steps would have to be taken to make sure every successive pope or king and queen of England would keep up their end of the contract. Now the Barons (French title not English) were the popes and the corporation’s next tool to be used to create a controlling aspect upon the king. By fueling the Barons by saying they were now the slaves and not the slavers as was created for them in William’s times, the pope and corporation fueled a rebellion of the Barons against the king for signing the treaty (contract) and supposedly forced John to sign the magna carta at Runnymede in 1215. Immediately after magna carta was signed it is wrote in history that the pope innocent III declared it unlawful, which I feel is a complete smoke screen (evidence to follow) as the pope needed the Barons to control any successive kings and queens to make sure the contract stayed in place – for without it the See of Rome (corporation) would lose its strangle hold over the island and would not have allowed for the control and false ownership of the lands of the world the corporation has now, none of this would have happened without this treaty (contract) first being in place.


At this time the whole powerbase was held by John, even though in pretence John was just over seeing what was happening under the ruling hand of Stephen Langton. As many in the country were very loyal to John, in effect John could raise an army if he had had the balls to do so, to go against Langton, the pope and the corporation, if becoming strong enough again to undo what he had done if his false belief in an entity called god did not stand in the way. The Barons were very much needed to be on the corporation’s side, so they were enticed and mustered through the greed of power and position, offering them status was all that was needed to maintain they would do the corporations dirty work. This was needed as anyone who ascended the throne after John could dissolve the contract, especially if they would not conform to the will of the corporation and the false laws of the fear of god and its oppression. What was needed was for the separation of power away from John and a legal document that would offer the Barons a unique set of laws for them alone and a commune of their own (city of London; within the Roman walls) a separate state to control everything from, in return for their willingness to keep John in check – on behalf of the archbishop which in turn was on behalf of the corporation. Because John was weakened from his endeavors with the pope, Stephen Langton and because of illness it was needed to strike while the iron was hot and a document within legal history was needed to be scripted to do such, not only the unique set of laws for the Barons, but also a document that would serve later to allow the corporation to extend its grip and maintain that the treaty (contract) would never be broken, by the introduction of a parliament and a fully fledged central point of administration of the legal systems you would call law that would ensure the devolution of the power base happened. Within this parliament (senate) the archbishops would have 26 seats to maintain absolute control on behalf of the corporation through a serious of deceptive processes based upon representation to fool everyone – which still remains to this day


Magna Carta 1215....the most perfect of all legal documents....


Not two years later the most famous or should I say infamous document in English legal history was scripted and forced upon King John at Runnymede to sign on the 15th June 1215, but to this day I have not seen a signed copy of this document and I know of no one who has ever checked the translation to see if it is correct – what else could be hidden in these words we have not been told about. Magna carta 1215 is as it stands the most perfect of all legal documents and contains many of the processes still used to this day, but as it was then, none of these are for you to use they are explicitly for the socially dominant and are unique to them. This is why Jack Straw in a presentation in Washington in February 2008 stated “we need to modernise magna carta” and the presentation he gave was called the modernisation of magna carta. Let’s start by looking at its name magna carta – the great charter of liberties.  


Charter: A written grant from the sovereign power of a country conferring certain rights and privileges on a person or a corporation, also: A document incorporating an institution and specifying its rights; includes the articles of incorporation and the certificate of incorporation 

As you can see a charter is a grant that does not apply to men, women and children it applies to ‘persons’, as long as you are deemed as to have the ‘privileges of a person’. Under canon law although man and person are synonymous in grammar, not all men were classed as persons as slaves were classed as ‘things’. At this time in England most of us would have been serfs; in other words slaves and this would have been the majority of us, so to any lord we would have been things and things (chattels) have no rights. They have no personality they are personalty: moveable property and Williams ‘Domesday Book’ was a list of all his personalty, as all censuses are. So when you combine this with liberties.

Liberties: The condition of being physically and legally free from confinement, servitude, forced labour, privileges, rights etc civil liberties.


Something that is plainly obvious starts to emerge. As it says above legally free, but ‘things’ cannot be legally free as they have no legal personality i.e. ‘status’ they do not exist in the legal world, so in effect they have no legal rights. ‘Things’ are not physically or legally free and can be kept in confinement, servitude under forced labour, they have no privileges, or rights and no civil liberties. ‘Things’ do not enjoy social, political or economic rights and privileges, they are property of another under the whim of that other. Even in its name alone it spells out who it was wrote for and exactly why it was wrote. Liberty is not freedom, liberty is a grant of rights, but would only apply to the ones of status, those who believed they were better in some way, as we would know it now the upper class high society. This legal document set forth the class divide, although already well established this document maintained that this concept would carry on through the ages even to present day and even in the parliamentarians own words spoke by Jack Straw "it is very essential and is needed to be modernised so it can be maintained".

The concept of liberty forms the core of all democratic principles and societies, yet as a legal concept it defies clear definition, which to me is very obvious because it actually defines slavery and is the antithesis of moral or natural as slavery is. We must remember that legal is in form only (persons) a category of ‘things’ distinguished by some common characteristic or quality and within this comes the legal ability to enslave those of lesser quality. A master slave syndrome maintained by a immoral legal concept in the form of liberty under a false belief system based upon nothing more than human suffering and a delusional miscomprehension that anything and everything is ok, as long as it has the label ‘legal’ upon it such as war. What is most evident here is the fact that ‘society’ relies upon a democratic process to exist and this is where the true meaning of society rears its ugly head. The socially dominant members of any community a definition of the word society says it all and describes what a democratic process really allows for in allowing the socially dominant to live off the back bone of the rest of the community believing they have a divine rite to do so and no matter what is needed to maintain this deception it is ok as long as it has the label ‘legal’ applied to it. In essence liberty is no more than legal slavery where men, women and children are bound by legal chains and not physical ones - are bound to those who are deluded under a misguided comprehension deriving from the use of fictional artificial law emanating from the church and the laws of oppression. One of the concepts magna carta achieved was to make the laws of oppression legal. But this document was to lead to many other devises that were needed to contain the kings and queens of the future within legal doctrine to prevent them from ever being able to break the original contract between John and pope innocent III and was to be used to set up the legal mechanism that would prevent this occurring and create a constitutional figure head. If you are struggling with any of this then let’s put it another way and bring it up to modern day. Before 1972 we were all known as ‘subjects’ the queens subjects, now of course we are known as ‘citizens’ more on this in a bit, but for now let’s look at the word ‘subjects’.

Subject: One who is under the rule of another or others, especially one who owes allegiance to a government or a ruler, the obligations of a vassal to a lord: a slave


So up until 1972 we were classed as slaves no different in description to the times magna carta was penned. Another deceptive word to disguise the true meaning of what we are actually classed as, by the socially dominant, the ruling classes and those of delusional status. Now we are classed as citizens, as of by definition being part of a republic, with the processes of a republic and a sovereign who is no more than a president, a figure head called a constitutional sovereign. When the new republic is fully establish i.e. the European union, the figure head of the old republic will be removed to allow us to merge with the new republic and thus the only one who can break the original contract is removed forever, legally that is....please remember this is all based upon legal fiction, the use of artificial law (legal systems) and has no power whatsoever over you unless you want it to and you except the illusion. The republic is a political one based on the legal concept of liberty that is why you are now classed as a ‘citizen’; a native or naturalized member of a state or other political community and oh boy you live in a political community controlled by legal parameters within a constitution, that is why everything is done under a constitutional basis derived from statute (legal) from the word status: The legal character or condition of a person or a thing. Governments derive their powers from the consent of the governed: The body of people (plural of person) who are citizens (a native or naturalized member of a state or other political community) of a particular government. But what they do not tell you is the fact that not all persons have to give consent, only ‘particular persons’ as slaves have no say now as they did not at any other time. You are ‘ruled’ whether you like it or not FULL STOP under this doctrine as a thing. They use an attachment to you called a legal personality via a piece of paper, a name, or as it was in the days of magna carta just a family name, to be able to legally label the thing (slave) as the thing cannot exist in the legal world unless it has a name, which became a certificate 153 years ago to say what it’s called. The thing is then ruled, regularised, regulated and ordered to adhere to all democracies legal concepts (statutes) via the attached name, via policy=contracts under acts (statutes) and are fooled into believing they are electing representatives to do this on their behalf and they are fooled into believing they can withhold consent - all we are really saying is 'NO' and that is the stumbling block, nothing to do with consent whatsoever. Without doubt we are fucking stupid!

This document set this doctrine in place as a legal concept and maintained that slavery would be legalised through this document that would be maintained till even now, with the concepts still now driven by the same purpose for the same needs. But this was not only to effect just England this was to effect the world and everywhere the fleet set sail to, delivering the doctrines of common and canon law legal systems and of course the place it emanates from the church. That is why whenever you look at a country within the common wealth its foundation is within a common law legal system construct to set up the privileges for the socially dominant who would then introduce the canon law legal system to control the ‘things’ (us), because the civil legal system has no foundation without the common law legal system first being in place. Because without a common law legal system there are no socially dominant and without the socially dominant there is nothing classed as things (slaves) so there is no need for a system to control them, a canon law legal system called democracy.

Without delving too deeply into the document evidence starts to emerge that without doubt throws new light on to what historians maintain. One key element is that the dope sorry the pope was against the signing of magna carta and was quoted to say “....this document is unlawful and unjust as it is base and shameful....” and this has been given as the main reason King John was excommunicated, total fabrication. Without doubt this document was scripted in Rome and put together by legal minds of the time because John had already signed the treaty of Verona (contract) and this document was to ensure John or any successor to the throne could never break that treaty (contract) and if this was not the case then why was Stephen Langton present at the signing? And offering advice! Especially because he was a cardinal: one of a group of more than 100 prominent bishops in the sacred college who advise the pope and elect new popes. It just does not make any sense if you realise the facts and do not except what historians say as being literal and more based on hearsay constructed to mask the truth deliberately.

 “....on the advice of our venerable fathers, Stephen, archbishop of Canterbury, primate of all England and cardinal of the holy Roman church, Henry archbishop of Dublin, William of London, Peter of Winchester, Jocelyn of Bath and Glastonbury, Hugh of Lincoln, Walter of Worcester, William of Coventry and Benedict of Rochester, bishops, of master Pandulf, subdeacon and member of the household of the lord pope, of brother Aymeric, master of the order of Knights Templar in England….”


Not just Stephen but many other members of the pope’s house hold plus the ruler of Ireland in the holy see’s eyes. If the pope was so against this document, then why were all these witness to it and giving advice? Surely if this was the case they would have boycotted the whole thing, or prevented it from happening and not witnessed it. The Barons were being granted concessions in return for their obedience to the pope and to recognise the Stephen Langton was the official ruler even though this would be done from the shadows as it is now. Certain privileges and rights ordained upon them in the form of magna carta to maintain they would do what the pope wished through his representative Stephen Langton to ensure that the King would never have the ability to undo the contract. This is why this legal document is unique in every aspect to them and would serve to be the template to create another vessel for control of the king or queen and all the men women and children of England, namely parliament. This vessel again was to be employed around the world, although called by many different names, nonetheless exactly the same in construct and design for the same purpose: slavery through a deceptive legal process called democracy!

24 comments:

Captain Ranty said...

I love this subject. It is absolutely fascinating.

Notice that we are described as "things"? In some versions of Blacks Law Dictionary we are also known as monsters, imbeciles or simply children.

If we are (collectively) chattel, it is no wonder they treat us with such contempt, disdain and disgust.

I am glad that I served my papers and that I am well out of it.

CR.

Revolution Harry said...

And me Captain. Apart from anything it's an extremely important subject.

The thing is, are you really out of it Captain. Surely the pernicious effects of 'the system' are still all around us whether we are in it or not. I'm still in reflective mode about the implications of what John Harris is saying. For a start, where does that leave the BCG? I've posted the article and my comments on the forum so we'll see what others have to say.

Monsters? Who do they think they are?

Captain Ranty said...

Well, at least I have an unrebutted affidavit lodged with the Home Office. I don't suppose I am truly disconnected but I can always point to my paperwork which says I am one step removed.

You are right though: complete escape is only possible if we really do escape. But leaving is not an option, not if you want to fight.

And I do.

CR.

Revolution Harry said...

So do I.

Lion of England said...

Why do you think B-LAIR converted to the Rat catchers?
1. He was obviously told he could not become the EussR
Mr PRESIDENT? without being Rc?
2.Why did he form his Rc Academy, for me I SMELL A Papal
RAT.

Revolution Harry said...

Yes, Lion, it certainly looks like 'all roads lead to Rome'.

Anonymous said...

As a protestant (Parents strong Protestants) I perhaps had the advantage (If you can call being bombed to hell as an advantage!) of being sent to a Convent for part of my education. (My own School (and house) bombed and me being sent to stay with a Aunt [Catholic] out of the bombing) It was here that I was taught about this Country being governed by Catholics before Magna Carta came along.

There is far more to this than I write here but Magna Carta is indeed a Treaty between the people of this land-this after the years of the Treaty of Verona-and the British Crown. This is why I maintain that although the Treaty of Lisbon states quite clearly "the Union shall have 'competence' over national constitutions and laws" cannot affect Magna Carta because it is not in Parliaments gift to give away. Had the people voted YES to the Treaty of Lisbon-perhaps we could have assumed they had also given the EU the right to over-ride Magna Carta but they were not asked and neither was the Queen. The Government used the Royal Prerogative on behalf of the British Crown.

I understand the Declaration and Bill of Rights are still the people’s to use and cannot come under the EU Treaty. This could be tested of course in Court. It would take a very brave Judge to declare that the Government had removed the people’s RIGHTS?

The people can use Clause 61 quite legally (that clause last used by four Lords at the time of Nice) for lawful rebellion.

However, it should also be remembered, just acceptance without using those rights will, through habit, become as lost.

The people voting FOR any new Bill of Rights as proposed by this Government, in a referendum would destroy (probably) Magna Carta and the Declaration Bill of Rights 1688/9) whilst the EU will automatically have “Competence” over the new anyway through Lisbon. I think you will find that is what it is all about.

The British Crown has no 'power' as such and never again will a Catholic sit on the British Throne. I think perhaps you will find that the Monarchy-no Monarch in the EU will RULE ever again -or as long as the EU lasts and as our national Government has followed EU orders in reducing our Forces-get used to life under EU Rule and as one USA President once said, "You ain't seen nothin’ yet!".

Anonymous said...

Have you ever looked into the possible causes of the English Civil War.
Charles 1st married to a French noble woman who was a staunch catholic
He tries to disolve parliament by statring that he has " the divine right" to rule alone. Now I wonder who put that idea into his head.
Me thinks I smell a papal rat.

Revolution Harry said...

I haven't Anon but it wouldn't surprise me in the least.

Michael Kelley said...

I think that the original role of the Church in the Roman Empire was to restrain the absolute rulers through their hearts and minds. The Church was mostly legally inferior human beings at first, who were tortured and killed at will for their staunch insistence that there is one true king over all creation, and he is Jesus Christ.

At first the Church was clearly NOT the Emperor nor did it wield any secular legal power, but the coming of the schismatic popes in the west and the formation of the Holy Roman Empire with its "infallible" pope, by the Gotha, Merovingians and related pagan bloodline kings of the "black nobilty" over-rode the fundamental meaning of the Christian Church.

The message of Christ is clearly addressed to the individual, and by partaking of the Sacraments the individual receives the blood of the supreme Sovereign within him, making him as much a "person" as any lord or lady. The gift of Christ is anathema to tyrants, and the Holy Spirit filled Church, through its preaching to the masses and to the pious among the nobility gave birth to the sense of individual freedom characteristic of the Christian English of the first millennium.

The book of Revelations cryptically warns us of the dilution of the Church and the eventual rise of the Antichrist and False Prophet who raise an army called "the remnant", who are of the seed of the woman (Church)(12:17, 19:21). But we are also told that this beast destroys Mystery Babylon the Mother of Harlots, and is executing God's righteous judgment.

So the appearance on the scene of a militant and imperial Orthodox Christian revival (albeit a deceptive and apostate one), centered on Russia and possibly Germany seems likely to herald the destruction of the western Crown powers, who together collectively are the Great Harlot. The Roman Catholic Church is likely to be suborned to this neo-Orthodox , patently Communist two headed monster of Emperor and Patriarch.

This is really the last phase of the destruction of the Church, since now even Holy Orthodoxy will be completely compromised, except the Catacomb Church. This would not have been possible without the Communist Revolution, and the Beast will be a Christian-Communist synthesis of unbreakable mind control. And its first job will be to teach the Satanic, queer, perverted "high contracting powers" of the City of London a fiery lesson.

Anonymous said...

This is all largely a joke. There's no real evidence that such a treaty existed.

Revolution Harry said...

I have to disagree Anon. I suspect that what John Harris proposes is fairly close to the truth. The presence of Cardinal Stephen Langton (the Pope's representative in England) and other members of the Roman church were 'advisers' and witnesses to Magna Carta.

“....on the advice of our venerable fathers, Stephen, archbishop of Canterbury, primate of all England and cardinal of the holy Roman church, Henry archbishop of Dublin, William of London, Peter of Winchester, Jocelyn of Bath and Glastonbury, Hugh of Lincoln, Walter of Worcester, William of Coventry and Benedict of Rochester, bishops, of master Pandulf, subdeacon and member of the household of the lord Pope, of brother Aymeric, master of the order of Knights Templar in
England….”

By all means question the veracity of the Treaty of Verona if you wish but the larger question, Papal control of Britain, seems conclusive.

Anonymous said...

Please correct the spelling mistakes, they terribly undermine the arguments. Czars were Emperors of Russia. Richard was held captive by an Austrian.
Most of Magna Carta has been repealed.
What was the significance of Henry VIII in this and surely the Bill of Rights was rejection of the Treaty of Verona ... talking of which ... I could not find this in wikipedia ... where can I get sight of the Treaty ?

Revolution Harry said...

You're quite correct, Czars were Emperors of Russia. However, although Richard was held captive by an Austrian he was handed over to Henry VI, the Holy Roman Emperor and King of Germany. It was he who demanded the ransom and to whom it was paid.

The author of the piece has obviously got his titles confused but as I didn't write it myself I think it would be remiss of me to make any changes.

The idea that Magna Carta has been repealed is highly debatable at best. Indeed most commenters on issues relating to our Constitution consider it to be very much still standing in law.

I can't claim to be any sort of expert on these matters. It's a subject I'm keen to know more about. As such I can't comment on any significance regarding Henry VIII or whether the Treaty of Verona was rejected by the Bill of Rights. If you can enlighten me on these issues I'd be grateful.

The author of the piece above has written about the Bill of Rights and you might find his take on the matter of some interest.

http://www.tpuc.org/Bill_of_Rights_1689

I'm not sure where the author gets the 'Verona' part from as most references to it are as 'The Treaty of 1213' or something similar.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_Treaty_of_1213

Anonymous said...

once (you) europeans admit that you are not indigenous to any land on earth then you would overstand that all this bull about church law means nothing. europeans think that they were her and ruled for day one.lie. your existance didnt get a foothold till the cave man.in which the aboriginal prople(MOORS) were already ruling the 7 seas and 7 continents, even the continents of the americas from the north to the south and the islands.if you want to tell the truth here,atleast be the correct truth,not some european truth(so-called).but be advised,we MOORS (the true REPUBLIC) are waking up, and will be reproclaiming our vast estates, northwest amexum,north africa which is known in modern times as north america.

Revolution Harry said...

Anon, can you show me the evidence of the 'Moors' ruling the 7 seas and 7 continents'? North Africa known in modern terms as North America? Explain that one as well while you're at it.

It's not 'church law' it's Common Law, a very different thing. The real controllers of this world are going out of there way to create conflict between various groups and it looks to me as if you've swallowed the bait. The freemason Albert Pike said that:

"The Third World War must be fomented by taking advantage of the differences caused by the "agentur" of the "Illuminati" between the political Zionists and the leaders of Islamic World. The war must be conducted in such a way that Islam (the Moslem Arabic World) and political Zionism (the State of Israel) mutually destroy each other."

Remember those words when you think you are 'reproclaiming' [sic] your 'vast estates'.

Anonymous said...

This article is unaccurate because it claims England is ruled by the Pope and has been since 1213 when John surrendered it to the Pope. Johns son HenryIII on reaching his majority repudiated Johns agreement with the Pope and placed those Barons who had worked with John to surrender England to Rome on trial for High Treason.

Stephen Langton was a good guy he was an Englishman sent from rome as Archbishop, John accepted him because he had given England to the Pope and considered he ruled it as a vassal King. Stephen Langton found a copy of the Charta of Liberties of King Henry I Stephen showed it to the Barons and it was used as a template for Magna Charta 1215. Magna Carta 1215 is not a law it is a legally enforcable contract between John representing the office of the Crown and the people of England. Article 61 lays down one way of holding the Crown to account. The answer to all these things is research research and more research. Albert www.acasefortreasaon.org.uk

Anonymous said...

Good to see the noise here, I suggest you all read: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_Supremacy/

which is to say, even if the above had been true, Henry VIII and again Elizabeth were not having any of it.
As Stalin later remarked, 'The Pope, how many divisions has he got.'

Revolution Harry said...

Rome's control of Britain may well have waxed and waned over the years but it regained control through the Hanoverian dynasty and King George I who, amongst other titles, was the 'Prince Elector of the Holy Roman Empire.' That control continues to this day.

Revolution Harry said...

Anon 10.49, I did have a look on Albert's site but I couldn't find anything to corroborate your claims regarding John's son and stephen Langton. I'd be happy to research if you directed me towards your sources.

Anonymous said...

Is Anonymous Albert? :)(not me the previous ones)

Revolution Harry said...

Could well be Anon.

Revolution Harry said...

King John's concession of England and Ireland to the Pope.

http://www.britannia.com/history/docs/johncon.html

Revolution Harry said...

Framed Print of The Crown resigned to the Popes legate by King John (1167-1216), 1213 from Heritage-Images.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Framed-resigned-legate-1167-1216-Heritage-Images/dp/B001H2JKPG