Monarchia aut Mortis - 2013 - The Year of the New Royalist Reaction

  • 1 Replies

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


Offline the leveller

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • 4128
  • +75/-0

Monarchia aut Mortis - 2013 - The Year of the New Royalist Reaction

Submitted by Louis on 7 January 2013 - 1:00pm

By Edwin Harwood


As we look back on the year gone by, the sensationalised predictions of the Mayan apocalypse don?t seem so absurd after all. Not at least when you consider what has been lost. It is our cultural world that is ending; the institutions that define England are eroding beneath an incessant barrage of attacks, wave after wave from a variety of institutions, each dedicated to cultural distortion.

The decline of the monarchy is the decline of Britain. The attack on the tradition of male primogeniture, the roots of which go deep down into our ancient past, is an attempt to render monarchy in Britain redundant. The cultural Marxist sentiments made popular through media dissemination have been appealed to in order to put pressure on all fronts, ensuring that religion, state, family and community are all fighting to maintain their crucial function in the maintenance of our culture and society.

Gay marriage is a divisive issue intended to split public opinion on the Church of England thereby leaving it susceptible to secular influence. The Pope has made clear his opinion on what is happening here, and is fully aware that the issue of gay marriage is being used to weaken Christianity in the West. Without a virile assertion of values, The Church of England?s moderating influence on maniacal social engineers in politics will be minimised.

The 2011 census has vindicated the opponents of cultural fragmentation, those who have been warning of the impending demographic shift for years. For the first time since the Anglo-Saxons inherited this land, the English are a minority in their own capital. The English remaining are hardly religious. Anglican churches are being rented out to Romanians of the Eastern Orthodox tradition while the English worship money, technology and celebrity. Can London truly be said to be the capital of our nation when its inhabitants have so little understanding of and sympathy for the rest of the country? For how much longer can the royal family maintain their legitimacy in a land increasingly populated by foreigners with no connection to the tradition of monarchy? Young people are indoctrinated into republican ideologies by American media; this is assisted by domestic left wing brain washing in schools and popular culture. All encourage hatred of hierarchy which is resentfully designated as privilege while serious consideration of the social responsibility implicit in a hierarchical society is absent from their doctrines. All societies are hierarchical. Denial of this fact leads to denial of the responsibility that accepting one?s position necessarily entails.

A plan of action is required; the New Reaction must establish the right to a historical-cultural identity for British people including the right to monarchy. Our nation has thrived under monarchy while republics the world over are in turmoil. Republicanism must be identified as the will to destruction, the will to poverty, the desire for death, the most hateful act of treason imaginable and its cultural proponents complicit in the most heinous of crimes. We shall utilise the weapons of the enemy whenever necessary, if cultural relativism is to be acknowledged as an influence on how human rights are defined, then the words of the Prime minister of Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew, are relevant to our cause.

?What Asians value may not necessarily be what Americans or Europeans value. Westerners value the freedoms and liberties of the individual. As an Asian of Chinese cultural background, my values are for a government which is honest, effective, and efficient.?

Our ancestors gave their lives to protect the British Monarchy. To deny us the right to maintain our state in accordance with our historical identity is to deny us our human rights. This fact also places an obligation to ensure the perpetuation of the institution of monarchy on all the subjects of the kingdom as well as on the monarchs themselves. Those who take the throne must be held to the oaths sworn at coronation.

?Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the Peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Pakistan, and Ceylon, and of your Possessions and the other Territories to any of them belonging or pertaining, according to their respective laws and customs? Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law? Will you maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England? And will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges, as by law do or shall appertain to them or any of them??

Her Majesty has failed. Secular fashion wields its political power over the spiritual realm and deems Christianity outdated. Had she honoured her responsibilities, there would be no gay marriage, no attack on male primogeniture and no mass immigration. Those responsible for such attacks would be deemed guilty of treason and dealt with accordingly.

A political allegiance of loyalists must be formed who can put pressure on parliamentary bodies so that the ruling monarch shall always be held to their oaths. Pressure must be exerted on all republican groups and their sympathisers. They should henceforth be referred to exclusively in terms that illuminate the culturally corrosive nature of their cause; name them terrorists, cultural imperialists, war profiteers, extremists, treasonous traitors and any other name that puts them on the back foot, forcing them to defend their attacks on the traditional apparatus of the British state. Hate speech is of course a most devious example of defamatory ?new speak?, but we must use the weapons at hand, and since monarchy is our cultural right, attack on monarchy shall be deemed hate speech, defamation of the monarchy by the media is high treason. The tasteless joke made at the expense of our Queen, and therefore at the expense of our nation, by Danny Boyle in his shamelessly socialist Olympics ceremony, should be viewed as the worst possible crime.

The Scouts and Guides are reconsidering their oaths to God and the Guides are even reviewing their salute to the Queen. Such alterations would render the movements redundant and are no less than criminal subversion. A youth for monarchy movement must be established to counteract cultural corrosion and a campaign to establish a compulsory salute to the crown in the state school system; children shall swear allegiance to the crown just as immigrants who wish to become British citizens are required to.

Let us not forget the true meaning of the word king. Old English cyning ?king? is etymologically related to cynn ?kin, race.? The root meaning is therefore derived from nobility of birth; the king is the ruler of the race by virtue of their nobility. Monarchy cannot ?adapt? beyond this meaning or it ceases to be monarchy in the English sense. To alter the meaning of kingship, to attack the hereditary principal or male-preference cognatic primogeniture, is to attack the Monarchy itself. If the foundations of the institution are undermined then it shall not stand for much longer. The commonwealth leaders pushing for these changes are attempting to destroy the very basis of our nation. People like David Cameron, a man of Jewish descent, may believe in a matrilineal descent system, but we gentiles have our own traditions. The BBC?s coverage of the issue leaves no doubt as to their position. First they quote Cameron, "The idea that a younger son should become monarch instead of an elder daughter simply because he is a man? this way of thinking is at odds with the modern countries that we have become."

Later, for an alternative view point, rather than quoting a royalist, a traditionalist or any right thinking member of the public, they quote the leader of the campaign group Republic, whose extremist statements make Cameron?s seem moderate by comparison.
"The monarchy discriminates against every man, woman and child who isn't born into the Windsor family. To suggest that this has anything to do with equality is utterly absurd," This is a cheap trick, used frequently by the BBC in an effort to appear objective while simultaneously enabling ever more extremist politics to take centre stage.

A New Royalist Reaction will be a force against such subversion, a shield to protect the people from insurrection and a reassurance to royalists that their voices are heard and that their loyalty is valued.



the watcher

  • Guest
Re: Monarchia aut Mortis - 2013 - The Year of the New Royalist Reaction
« Reply #1 on: February 03, 2013, 09:33:57 PM »
Telephone call by Brian Gerrish to Buckingham Palace and Sonia Bonici - secretary to the Queen.
For those who may not know of this call,made in July 2008

Interesting telephone conversation between Brian Gerrish and Buckingham Palace.

Submitted by Dan Hughes on Sat, 19/07/2008 - 16:31 in Common Law
Following the sending of my Constitutional Lawful Affidavits to Her Majesty the Queen regarding the miss-governance of our country and subsequent third party reply I received from senior correspondent Mrs. Sonia Bonici, Brian Gerrish a dear friend of mine decided to telephone Buckingham Palace to ask Mrs. Bonici a few questions relating to these matters.
What you are about to listen to is the conversation between Brian Gerrish and Mrs. Bonici, which to say the least, is quite revealing concerning my Affidavits, how they have been dealt with by Buckingham Palace and the subject of how this country is being sold out by Parliament to the EU.
One of the most astounding comments I found amazing was the fact Mrs. Bonici quite forcefully states that Her Majesty is nothing more than a ?Constitutional Monarch who cannot intervene in the matters concerning the EU and it is down to her ministers?. I am sure you will all agree that it is very apt that Her Majesty intervenes in the matter of this country being sold out to the EU and that is what a Constitutional monarch should be doing.
Many more comments like the one above are made by Mrs. Bonici and I am sure you will find this very interesting to listen too.
To all concerned I, John James Harris take full responsibility for the publishing of this video and it has been published to enlighten the British Public concerning the activities of all concerned with the deliberate sell out of this country to the EU and subsequent miss handling of documents sent to Her Majesty regarding the very serious issue of the miss governance of this country.
Transcript of the call made by Brian Gerrish to Buckingham Palace.

BG = Mr. Brian Gerrish

SB = Mrs. Sonia Bonici

"This is Buckingham Palace, this call is being recorded and may be used for training
purposes. If you have been asked to call this number urgently, it's because of a hoax
message and you should hang up immediately. If however you have a valid reason
to call the Royal household please hold for an operator."


Answered, "Private secretaries office can I help you."

BG - Good afternoon, is that Mrs Bonici?

SB - Speaking.

BG - Yes hello, my name's Brian Gerrish, I'm calling to
 ask if I may a couple of questions about a letter that's been posted on a website with respect to an affidavit
which has been submitted to the Queen.

SB - Right.

BG - Are you aware of that affidavit?

SB - No, not at all, I've no idea, I mean I just deal with correspondence that comes
in and I reply if I'm instructed to do so, erm, your name is Brian...?

BG - Gerrish

SB - G.A.R.I.S.H?

BG - G.E double R

SB - Could you spell again please?

BG - G.E...

SB - G.E...

BG - Double R

SB - Double R

BG - I. S. H

SB - I. S. H I'm so sorry.

BG - Okay, well I got a letter in front of me dated May 2008 in which you actually
 reply to the affidavit which a Mr. John Harris sent in, and you say that you forwarded
his correspondence to the Foreign and Commonwealth office because it relates to
the European Union.

SB - Right.

BG - But the only thing is his correspondence didn't relate to the European Union.

SB - Right, can you give me his name again sorry I'll look him up.

BG - Okay, it's John Harris, H. A. double R. I. S.

SB - John Harris.... there's lots of John Harrises, - pause.

BG - But Mr. Harris submitted two signed affidavits to the Queen which went
recorded, in fact, he tried to hand them in personally but they were sent recorded
delivery in the end, and you've obviously received them because you replied to his
letters. Would it help if I read your letter it's very short?

SB - Yes please.

BG - I am to thank you for your recent letter addressed to the Queen on the subject
of the European Union. Careful note has been taken of your comments, however, as
 her Majesty receives many such letters it is not possible to send an individual reply
to every one. Policies on... (Interrupted) Pardon...

SB. - I see, this was a form letter we sent, it isn't dear Mr. Harris or anything on the
front is it, on the top it's just a third-party reply.

BG - Yes, but it's your signature.

SB - Yes yes, I, I, yes, right.

BG - What is of interest is that Mr. Avidav.... Mr. Harris sent an affidavit which didn't
mention the European Union.

SB - How very strange, I don't always see these letters, because I sign, when when,
the problem is, I'll start from the
 beginning. The problem is we have about 2000 letters in a back log, and we have, I have a team of ladies who help me, a very small
team, but they help me reply to people, if it's about the European Union or if it is
about a certain thing, and we know that the European Union letters would go to the
 foreign office for example and they read the letter and once it comes back, and, erm,
what may have happened if it's nothing to do with the European
 Union it might be that it got mixed up with the European Union stuff and sent on by mistake. That's
the only thing I can think of.
BG -But how, how, excuse me, how would a signed letter from yourself, with your
signature at the bottom, how...

SB - A batch of letters, because it's a third-party reply and I give it to my ladies to,
 erm, to send off on my behalf, so if it's for the European Union they will have a letter
see, because the Government, does it actually say foreign office on there?

BG - Your letter says that it's been forwarded through to the foreign office.

SB - Ah, because...

BG - This gentleman has sent to affidavits, signed affidavits, and the only reply he's
got is a letter from yourself, which you are now telling me you didn't really send, it

SB - ?that I've seen, I mean that I have seen, that's the only problem. Can you tell
me the date that I replied, is there a date on there or has he just got May?

BG - It just says May.

SB - May.

BG - But this, this is incredible, with due respect, this is absolutely amazing, that

SB - Right, quite right...

BG - ... has sent an affidavit, and effectively you're telling me that it hasn't been
 received or processed.

SB - It has been received and it was sent, prob, it was erm, rec... probably received
in this office, opened, sent to the Queen, returned to us with, with instructions but
 somehow it's got mixed up. That's what I'm trying to say, because I I didn't see this
letter, so I think...

BG - But, but...

SB - it's got mixed up...

BG - Mrs. Bonici, with great respect, I cannot believe that you're prepared to send
 out letters with your signature on referring to other letters which you haven't seen.

SB - Because we, I only put my signature to it so that somebody has a point of
reference so you can come back to me, that's the point, otherwise a third-party reply
has always gone out without any signature at all, and I'd rather somebody came...
BG - So how can you possibly say in the first paragraph of your letter, careful note
has been taken...

SB - Well would have done, because it would have gone to the Queen. And careful
note not by us, careful note, but the Queen would have taken careful note.

BG -Well if...

SB - I am a bit concerned now because I'm just trying to think where the letter would
have gone to, so if the foreign office perhaps, erm, would you mind sending me a
 copy of what you have, and do you have a copy of the, of his letter, Mr Harris's letter,
what, err, can you answer something else actually, why are you speaking on behalf
of Mr. Harris?

BG - Well it's very easy, because the letters to which I refer are clearly available to
 the general public because they're on a website.

SB -Oh right, okay. So you're not in concert with Mr. Harris.

BG -Well, I am but I've, I'm making a total independent phone call because I, I, I read
through the material on the web site and I was so fascinated I decided to ask for

SB - Right.

BG -But the man has submitted an affidavit to
 the Queen on an incredibly serious matter, which is the miss-governance of this country.

SB - So it shouldn't have gone to the foreign office in the first place.

BG - Absolutely. But he's also submitted a letter to you, back to you on 13 May, so
you must have personal correspondence from Mr. Harris there.

SB - I haven't at the moment, I haven't seen, err, anything from Mr. Harris, at the
 moment, but that doesn't mean that...

BG - But it went by recorded delivery.

SB -Yes. It would either be, erm, with the Queen still, but hasn't come back to us
because that can take a couple of weeks, but I shall look for it, if he's written then I
shall have a look. Can I have more details...

BG - Can I do something which will probably make your life easier; have you got
access to the web to there?

SB - I have.

BG -If you were to logon to the following website it's very simple, it's, www.

SB - yes...

BG -T.P.U.C.

SB - T for Tommy P, P for Peter, U C

BG - that's correct, dot ORG

SB - Right

BG - And you can see an exact copy of the two affidavits that Mr Harris has sent,
and you will also at the top of a page see you're letters referred to and you can click
 on it and it will show you a copy of the letter.

SB - Right.

BG - So I'm afraid to say you are in the public domain, which is why I...

SB - That doesn't surprise me.

BG - That's why, why I feel entitled to respond.

SB - Fine, yes, now you did right, thank you very much for that. What I want to do
now is take a copy of this and, erm, pause... (whispers) and what I'll do is I'm going
to look for Mr. Harris's letter if he says he is written on the 13th then I will find out.
BG - Can I ask, I'll call it a point of protocol.

SB - Sure.

BG - If you, if the Queen receives letters about the European Union, do they just get
forwarded to the Foreign & Commonwealth Office?

SB - While not at all, it depends what is said, but if it is a foreign and Commonwealth
 matter, rather, the Queen can't intervene if she's a, she's a constitutional sovereign,
she won't intervene in in in these matters and she leaves things to her ministers,
which is why the ministers concerned at the moment for the
 European Union is the Foreign & Commonwealth Office.

BG - Are you aware that members of the public have been reporting treason to
police stations?

SB - I'm, I've, I have heard that err people say this in in letters, absolutely yes.
BG- Well I, it's happened in fact because I, I am one of them. I have actually taken
documents to a local police station, to report treason, as committed by the Heath
government and perpetrated by successive governments.

SB - Sure, sure.

BG - And these are very serious issues...

SB - Sure.

BG - ...and I find
 it extraordinary that somebody has sent these affidavits into Buckingham Palace.

SB - I don't understand why that didn't come to me directly actually, I'm quite
perplexed now, the computer is very slow and trying to print, ah, here we go. I'm
going to print out his letter and I want to find out where his 13th of, you say he's
written on 13 May, I will find that letter and make sure it's on my desk and I shall
reply to Mr. Harris myself but, high don't understand why it got mixed up and sent off
if it had nothing to do with the European Union...

BG - Well many of us would say that it is quite extraordinary but a lot of documents
concerning peoples views on the European Union tend to get lost.

SB - Err, not not from us though I must admit it's not, that that wouldn't have erm, it
 wouldn't get lost from our point of view, we do send them on because we have to, we
are instructed to send them on to the Foreign & Commonwealth Office.

BG - Yes, but one of the conundrums is that the Queen cannot be sovereign and a
citizen of the European Union can she?

SB - I can't comment on anything like that I'm afraid.

BG - Well...


BG - I'm sure you can but common sense would say that that applies to the situation
in which we find ourselves, so something is not quite right and Mr. Harris I know is
 now admired by a huge number of people from his courage in actually making a
statement that there's something absolutely wrong in the country.

SB - (Whisper)... He has a perfect right to say...

BG - Hmmm.

SB - UNCLEAR - I'm sure.

BG - He has a perfect right to believe that having written and communication and a
very important one to his sovereign that he gets a proper reply.

SB - Yes I can understand
 that to, I'm just really sorry that he didn't, I don't understand why that happened, really I don't understand why that happened.
BG - Right.

SB -But erm, I will try and, I will try and find his letter of the 13th and I will reply.
BG - Okay.

SB - It's very very odd, I'm terribly sorry about this and please apologise to Mr Harris
for me, I have no idea at this particular moment I'm still trying to print but it's not
 working it really isn't working, I'll have to erm...

BG - Right Okay, erm, if letters are forwarded from Buckingham Palace to the
Foreign and Commonwealth office who who would actually deal with them on behalf
of the Queen?

SB - We would send it on to the private secretary at the Foreign and Commonwealth
 office, that is probably your best but actually to talk to them, however, I mean erm,
you're, he's still talking - my lawful in turn to the traitors in Parliament - so in a sense
he is talking about the European Union.

BG - Why, do you think the European Union is traitorous?

SB - No it's because you've been saying that about treason and everything else, I
presume that that's what he meant.

BG - Ah well, this is a subtlety isn't it because the...

SB - Just quickly scanning this...

BG - What what we have at the moment erm, ministers are themselves signing
documents handing away power many would consider...

SB - That's exactly right, that's probably why my team actually sent it on and it's
probable the right place for it to go.

BG - Well I believe there is a large amount of debate to be had over that because
whether it's the place of your team to deal with a matter which is addressing treason.

SB -If it's a matter of European Union then my team are quite correct in sending it on
to the foreign office because there's nothing else...

BG - But but with great respect erm Mr. Harris does not mention the European

SB - I'm sure, I can't see it mentioned here.

BG - Absolutely.

SB - So what would he mean and unless unless we, unless erm, sorry I was just
trying to read it as quickly as I can. Well I'm not going to go into debate here
 because I haven't seen the original letter so I'm going to erm find his letter of the
13th and then erm, reply to him directly.

BG - Okay.

SB - All right?

BG - Well, I'm very sure he'll be interested in your response, thank you very much...

SB -Okay, thank you for calling.

BG - ...for talking to me, okay, bye bye.

Share this topic...
In a forum
In a site/blog

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk