Part 3: Sovereignty – who actually owns this nation?

Part 1: Letter from New Zealand
Part 2: The world is in good hands
Part 3: Sovereignty – who actually owns this nation
Part 4: Wheels within wheels
Part 5: The Venetians and the concept of oligarchy
Part 6: The assault on science and the great climate scam
Part 7: Atonalism and the assault on society
Part 8: Understanding is half the battle
Part 9: The resistance
Part 10: Who rules the world – further reading


The Temple Crown

Temple Bar, Holborn Bars, these and others were once literally bars (barriers). The Temple Bar marked the west boundary of the City of London on the road to Westminster and is situated where Fleet Street meets the Strand. London also had the western gates Ludgate (Lud Gate) and Newgate (New Gate).

It was exactly London’s way of doing things to get the Crown to authorize a barrier, and then firmly remind the Crown that a barrier is there, and that Westminster is not London. As time goes on, the idea disguises itself in the pageantry of welcome.

The Crown” is actually a committee of twelve to fourteen men who rule the independent sovereign state known as London or ‘The City.’ ‘The City’ is not part of England. It is not subject to the Sovereign. It is not under the rule of the British parliament. Like the Vatican in Rome, it is a separate, independent state.

Aubrey Menen wrote, in “London”, Time-Life, 1976, p. 16:

“The relation of this monarch of the City to the monarch of the realm [Queen] is curious and tells much.”

When the Queen of England goes to visit the City she is met by the Lord Mayor at Temple Bar, the symbolic gate of the City. She bows and asks for permission to enter his private, sovereign State.

During such State visits

“the Lord Mayor in his robes and chain, and his entourage in medieval costume, outshines the royal party, which can dress up no further than service uniforms.”

This area we’re talking about here is known as the Crown Temple and has been known by that name or a variation of it for centuries.

Thus the Four Inns of Court to the Crown Temple use the Banking and Judicial system of the City of London – a sovereign and independent territory which is at once part of and not part of the United Kingdom, preceding the UK by some considerable time.

The Temple Bar and their Bar Association franchises come from four Inns or Temples of Court: the Inner Temple, the Middle Temple, Lincoln’s Inn, and Gray’s Inn.  The Queen [and formerly the Queen Mother] are/were members of both the Inner Temple and Middle Temple. Gray’s Inn specializes in Taxation legalities by Rule and Code for the Crown. Lincoln’s Inn received its name from the Third Earl of Lincoln (circa 1300).

None of the Four Inns of the Temple are incorporated – you can’t make claim against a non-entity and a non-being. They are private societies without charters or statutes, their constitutions are based solely on custom and self-regulation.

While the Inner Temple holds the legal system franchise by license affecting Canada and Great Britain, it is the Middle Temple that has legal license to affect America. This comes about directly via their Bar Association franchises to the Honourable Society of the Middle Temple through the Crown Temple.

The power of The City

This fact is further demonstrated by another passage from Menen’s book:

“The Prime Minister, a busy politician, is not expected to understand the mysteries of high finance, while the Chancellor of the Exchequer is only expected to understand them when he introduces the budget.

Both are advised by the permanenet officials of the Treasury, and these listen to the City. If they suspect that some policy of the government will back-fire, it is of no use their calling up British ambassadors to ask if it is so; they can find out more quickly from the City.

As one ambassador said: “Diplomats are nowadays no more than office boys, and slow ones at that. The City will know. They will tell the Treasury and the Treasury will tell the Prime Minister.”Woe betide him if he does not listen.”

The most striking instance of this happened in recent history. In 1956 the then Prime Minister, Sir Anthony Eden… launched a war to regain the Suez Canal. It had scarcely begun when the City let it be known that in a few days he would have no more money to fight it; the Pound would collapse. He stopped the war and was turned out of office by his party.

When the Prime Minister rises to address the Lord Mayor’s banquet, he hopes that the City will put more behind him than the gold plate lavishly displayed on the sideboards.”

This is why Gordon Brown’s postulating about reining in The City was met with arched eyebrows inside The City.  Either Brown understood the real situation and was politicking – a man who’d run out of money and didn’t care now what he said but who greedily saw a huge source of wealth in that small section of territory, not unlike Philip in the days of Jacques de Molay – or else he was just ignorant.

That piece of territory has a most unclear relationship to the “Crown” which we take to mean the Royal Family’s head, the Monarch but which is nothing of the sort and precedes the modern version of the monarchy by centuries.  Henry VIII, Cromwell, William of Orange – all altered the relationship of the monarch to both the church and the state and its aristocracy but the Crown Temple never altered.


So who has sovereignty in this country?  Well, it depends what you mean by that word.  If you mean nominally, then the Queen reigns over us.  If you mean in terms of day to day laws, then the Prime Minister decides our fates.  If you mean the country’s ability to do anything, for its elected parliament to initiate action, then The City and the Crown Temple rule.

Certainly that is so in the colonies, particularly in the U.S.A., where the Declaration of Independence was signed by five Temple men among others and the curious wording of the documents of state did not free America from Britain at all.  They freed the country from the British Crown but not from the Crown Temple.

The Privy Council

Patrick O’Connor QC wrote a paper on the Privy Council, its powers and its role.

The Constitutional Role of the Privy Council and the Prerogative

One conclusion was that the Privy Council does actually have formal powers is undoubted:

privyfiction 2

Lord Mandelson is President of the Privy Council. Here is a list of members.  This means that the Queen’s advisory body is headed by the Dark Lord, not by Gordon Brown.

Labour has tried, through a series of acts, to nobble the Lords and has done a good job but that still has not nobbled the Privy Council, hence the who’s who on the membership list.  O’Connor’s article shows the power this body actually has and that it is, like the Temple Crown, distinctly unclear in legal terms and in terms of constitutional law.

Where does that leave the people?

The people did not ratify the 1213 document nor Magna Carta nor the host of Acts since then.  They do, however, elect the Prime Minister and his ministers, as well as everyone else in the parliament.  They do not have a legal right but do have an international legitimacy over The City, i.e. anything in common within these shores belonging to the government of the UK belongs to the people, by definition.

However, the principle of private property, which includes the deeds to your own home and car, are a legal contract and so is whatever the Temple Crown controls – it’s a private contract or a plethora of them.  Not even the Monarch can come in and appropriate these, according to the Temple Crown’s own rules.

Back to the BIS

The BIS was set up according to the same rules – immunity from state interference, right of passage without let or hindrance and the right to trade with the state which houses it as if between two parties in a contract.

When you see who is in and who are senior officers in the BIS, then the position becomes clearer.  The Bank of England is very much part of the regulatory body, the BIS.  Therefore the money in the UK is subject to the BIS and other bodies, by contract, such as the IMF and World Bank.

The debt Gordo plunged us into runs alongside the debt which the supranational bodies just mentioned above and mentioned in the previous post have induced in the society, e.g. the subprime lending blowout which can be sheeted home to the BCBS over here and to the Fed over in the States, both bodies interrelated and sharing the same personnel to a degree, more so the higher in those bodies one goes.

The Queen is a figurehead who has little real power in terms of the way the country is run but who has immense power in terms of the legality of her position and the bodies she is part of.

If she needs money for a project, it is only on the recommendation of the PM who himself can only get this through influencing the Privy Council and then needs to go to the City which itself is subject to the BIS – thus Montague Norman’s acquiescence over the gold directive from Basel in the previous post.

So again – who has sovereignty in this country?

The EU

Enough has been written about their formal position vis a vis the UK.  They have the power, given to them by the British Parliament, i.e. Gordon Brown, to influence all aspects of peopl’e lives, from the size of your loos to how and when you can travel.

It is possible to withdraw from the EU and this forms part of the next post.  Enough on the EU for now.  Suffice to say that it is also beholden to the supranationals in exacty the same way as the UK.

Where do the people come in?

They don’t.  You have the right, once every five years, to elect one local member, someone who has been preselected by CCHQ and therefore subject to the supranationals.

That’s it.  End of story.

You do not run the country any more than you run Shell or British Airways.  This is not to say you don’t have the legitimacy to run it – you do.  International statements of sovereignty, especially in the U.S.A., make that clear and in any court of law, the consensus and precedent support the legitimacy of the people in running the nation through their elected representatives.

Instead, what we have – and this has come through quite clearly through candidates’ responses to Albion Alliance, is some astounding arrogance regarding the right of the people to have any say in their affairs and this has been written up at Witterings and will be addressed here in the next post.

In short

Charles I’s death was a direct result of this question of sovereignty or more accurately, the right to make large amounts of money and to control the money supply.  It always comes down to money.

Bodies like the Knights Templar and their modern descendants the BIS and Fed all seized the money-making and money-lending instruments, enshrined themselves in diplomatic immunity and set themselves up to control their spheres of influence.  The famous Rothschild quote:

Give me control of a nation’s money and I care not who makes the laws …

… says all one needs to know.  In a world of fiat money and fractional reserve banking, the credit provider is king.  He creates money with a ledger entry and eliminates it the same way.  He induces price/wage disparity and bases the nation’s monetrarydealings on debt, not on fair exchange or barter.

The Temple Crown has surrounded itself with laws to protect itself and exclude the Monarch, the parliament and the people and attempts to take that power away have always come unstuck.  This is because it was attempted by the first two and not by the third – the people.

The Crown knows full well that the whole thing is a scam, not based on any legitimacy whatsoever.  They’re secure in the knowledge that, come a revolution, some head of state or politician will get the chop but they never will.

If the people are contemplating revolution in 2010-12, then the Crown Temple is the place to go, not Westminster.

31 comments for “Part 3: Sovereignty – who actually owns this nation?

  1. January 9, 2010 at 11:19

    When the Monarch crosses the Bar, Royal power trumps local authority. I seem to recall an instance where a convicted criminal was about to receive sentence of death when his life was spared because the Monarch had entered the City.

  2. January 9, 2010 at 12:05

    Yes but that doesn’t alter the largely symbolic gesture the Queen must make on entering and that is a reminder of where the real power, in terms of being able to afford to do anything, lays. He who holds the purse strings.

    This has always been the way with monarchs. They’ve funded the wars through both taxation and loans, the loans come from the same source. Look at who UK plc is in hock to right now. Russia recently paid off a Club of Paris loan. This is where the monetary power is.

    In turn, this affects what candidates can or cannot pledge to. They can pledge, all right and are doing so but what weight does it have in terms of he who controls the purse strings?

  3. Rossa
    January 9, 2010 at 14:48

    May also explain why the Lord Mayor of the City wasn’t Knighted by GB, the only one not to get a Knighthood for a long time. All he got was the CBE. Petty but obviously all GB had left to him. A good measure of the man, GB that is.

    From what I have read about all this the only thing that could bring the whole edifice down would be a complete collapse of the monetary system. It is endemically corrupt and the papering over of the cracks will not stop the dam from bursting. It will have to go from the inside out like the USSR did. So those that think they are in control may not have as much control as they like to believe.

    And one thing to remember, the public cannot be held responsible for the debts of private banks or organisations. They are not owned by the people, but then neither is the BoE. Our government may have done so once (bailed them out with our money) but they will not be able to do so forever.

    Interesting times we live in.

  4. January 9, 2010 at 15:26

    All this stuff is very interesting. The more I learn the less I realise I know, and the stronger the smell of sulphur becomes!

  5. January 9, 2010 at 17:59

    I second Trooper Thompson’s words…….I just want to find that little man who keeps pigeons in york who runs the world.

    Sounds surreal but I am sure the truth is very close to it.

  6. January 9, 2010 at 18:00

    Really interesting post James. Never really understood all that stuff.

  7. January 9, 2010 at 18:05

    You and me both lad and the next post is even less understandable. Thanks, all.

  8. January 9, 2010 at 19:40

    I spend most of my days rubbing my eyes in disbelief. There is so much we don’t know. And it’s not even as if they buried it all that deeply. A wee scratch and much is revealed.

    This is an excellent post James, thank you for writing it up.


  9. January 9, 2010 at 21:38

    When I said to one of your other commenters recently that the Queen had no choice because she had no authority I didn’t realise it went quite this far. But now the jigsaw is shaping up.

  10. January 9, 2010 at 21:56

    I’m just looking at the Venetians now and it is very much falling into place.

  11. January 9, 2010 at 22:12

    I am looking forward to the post on that 🙂

  12. January 9, 2010 at 23:39

    Great piece, James.

    Interestingly, Mandy is muscling in some more:

    “By taking charge of the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee in 2012, Lord Mandelson – who cleverly kept his fingerprints off the plot – has quietly boosted his prospects of ousting Boris Johnson as London Mayor.”

  13. January 10, 2010 at 10:11

    The thot plickens.

  14. Distant Relative
    March 25, 2017 at 11:24
  15. Distant Relative
    March 25, 2017 at 12:09

    Haven’t checked whether his findings are correct but it could be a starting point for anyone with the will and time to do so. Mathis always points out his papers are his opinions. “Thrones Infiltrated”

  16. Distant Relative
    March 28, 2017 at 16:20

    Chanced upon this earlier “The Inns of Court and of Chancery”

  17. Distant Relative
    March 29, 2017 at 08:05

    “Brief History of Imperial Roman Canon Law” written by Charles P Sherman

  18. Distant Relative
    March 29, 2017 at 18:19

    B.I.S. Board of Directors (2017)

    Chairman: Jens Weidmann, Frankfurt am Main

    Mark Carney, London
    Agustín Carstens, Mexico City
    Andreas Dombret, Frankfurt am Main
    Mario Draghi, Frankfurt am Main
    William C Dudley, New York
    Ilan Goldfajn, Brasília
    Stefan Ingves, Stockholm
    Thomas Jordan, Zurich
    Klaas Knot, Amsterdam
    Haruhiko Kuroda, Tokyo
    Anne Le Lorier, Paris
    Fabio Panetta, Rome
    Urijt R Patel, Mumbai
    Stephen S Poloz, Ottawa
    Jan Smets, Brussels
    François Villeroy de Galhau, Paris
    Ignazio Visco, Rome
    Pierre Wunsch, Brussels
    Janet L Yellen, Washington
    Zhou Xiaochuan, Beijing

  19. Distant Relative
    August 9, 2017 at 18:02

    The Privy Council (Her Maj’s Prerogative Powers by Scott Thompson)

    The second of your links above on Privy doesn’t work now, btw.

    • August 9, 2017 at 19:20

      Saw that – doubt it can be found now.

  20. Distant Relative
    August 9, 2017 at 19:37

    Here’s a working link for the Patrick O’Connor Privy Council paper as the one in the main post is kaput too.

Comments are closed.