The study of history is important because it allows one to make more sense of the current world.
One can look at past economic and cultural trends and be able to offer reasonable predictions of what will happen next in today’s world.
One can also understand why some rules exist in the modern world.
Well what if everything you know or have been told wasn’t the way its supposed to be ?
Ok, Australia its time we had a talk.
As many know Australia is only a young civilised country, very young compared to Britain America Europe and so on.
As many also know we started as a settlement, then a colony, then the Commonwealth of Australia.
What many do not know, is we then went from the Commonwealth of Australia, to just plain Australia.
Many do not know , that there was no referendum to change from the Commonwealth of Australia to just plain old Australia.
So its time to explain just how a nation just like Australia is built, and for that we need to go back to the beginning.
It may come as a surprise to some that Government’s parliaments’ dictators, communism, and alike never existed in natural nature.
In fact, no law exists other than natural law, naturally in nature.
Murders happened, rape, theft, assaults and other judgements and bad decisions reigned, due to no systems of justice.
There was no justice but what you handed out yourself, or groups of people called possies would hunt others down and get justice by whatever means.
Many innocent were slain and butchered.
So groups of mankind decided to create kingdoms and empires, or rulers and Governments.
How was this achieved many may ask?
To do these things borders would need to be created, Authority would have to be created, then laws would be created, and men and women would have to agree and consent to such things.
To create borders, a realm would be created, to create Authority a bible would be used or created, to create laws a Constitution and system of justice would be created, and to enact such laws would come by approval or consent of the governed.
In the case of the Commonwealth of Australia, it was a process that took some time to establish.
At the time of discovery and settlement, Australia had a few names, new Holland and others before the Commonwealth of Australia was born , all of which came under full British Authority of the Imperial Crown realm, with the already enacted British laws , bible and consent of which, the convicts and men and woman followed at that time in our history as sovereign Australians.
During the 1800s, the people of the Australian colonies wanted more control over the issues they faced, and being so far away from the motherland getting approval or assent from kings Queens or British Parliament wasn’t easy.
So the people of the colonies declared their intentions to unite as one Commonwealth of Australia to become a self-governing colony.
This was attained through many deals and conversions debates and arguments, however, a general consensus was reached.
That consensus was that the borders would remain under the sovereignty of the Imperial Crown its people and that our official bible would remain as the king James bible 1611 as one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth as a Constitutional monarchy.
The people would retain the English Common laws including bill and Declaration of rights UK 1688 1689,
Magna-Carta and all rights bestowed onto man under God.
The people then Under the blessing of Almighty God united into one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth, under the Imperial Crown of Great Britain, through the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act.
This completed the steps needed to become a self-governing colony of Great Britain.
The Commonwealth of Australia was born and by approval of Queen Victoria 1901.
Australia was no longer a baby colony having its backside wiped by the British.
In 1901 that Australia becomes a toddler learning to walk so to speak, with the motherland still attached, but at a arms distance.
Then came world war1.
It was ww1, where Australians really stepped up and showed the world that our Commonwealth were no longer toddlers, and in the year 1919 Australia signed the treaty of Versailles.
This was a big step towards nationhood, and a step only achieved by the blood of our Anzacs.
What should have happened at this point was Australia should have become a totally independent nation, a kingdom, or a republic or alike, such a move was approved by the royals.
The problem was our politicians kept all these things hidden.
Why?
The politicians of the day, obviously didn’t want the Australian people having such power, so they went about a series of serious crimes against the men and women of the Commonwealth of Australia.
There were so many treaties and agreements signed up to without any approval of the people.
No referendums, not even a public official, bringing these issues to the attention of the Commonwealth people.
Important treaties and information to note for your own personal research.
Ww1 treaties
modern-world-history-1918 to 1980 the treaty of versailles
Ww2 peace treaties
Treaty of Ghent
Hague Convention 1899:
Hague Convention 1907:
Geneva Convention 1864:
Geneva Convention 1906:
Geneva Convention 1929:
Geneva Convention 1949
Geneva Convention 1949 II:
Geneva Convention 1949 III:
Geneva Convention 1949 IV:
Debt sinking fund Act.
Unidroit
1914-1918-war_finance_great_britain_and_ireland
Australia Act
Lands Act
United-Kingdom/The-Revolution-of-1688
magna-carta/articles/magna-carta-english-translation
legislation.gov.uk
Annotated Commonwealth of Australia Constitution.
1611 king james bible.
let’s not forget the Sinking fund Act 1928.
There is so much information on the trespass against all of us.
Make no mistake our Constitutional Commonwealth was stolen right from under our feet.
Our Commonwealth assets turned into corporations and sold off.
Our Crown changed our flags changed our State constitutions changed our entire judicial system changed .
You can find such information very easy on the Internet if you know where to look.
The Commonwealth of Australia entered into many Peace Treaties and agreements post World War One leading to and the requirement to ask the people of the Commonwealth of Australia to participate in Peace Loans, War Loans and War Bonds and many others.
However was it put to the people at all or just some pen pushers in parliament?
Under these Peace Treaties Could The Commonwealth of Australia be Occupied by a foreign power?
Well, when one looks into all these agreements and treaties It seems They did just do as they wished and we are indeed occupied.
Hague Conventions 1899 , wherein the adopted Convention introduced on 26th January 1910, at Article 55 demonstrates the Administration of the Commonwealth of Australia under the Rules of Usufruct, putting an Occupying Military Power in “use of the fruits” of the Commonwealth of Australia.
If one is to look through our history it becomes quite evident that nothing is as it should be in our Commonwealth of Australia.
That’s because it’s not our Commonwealth of Australia at all.
Before Queen Elizabeth II was crowned in 1953, the Commonwealth of Australia did not have the Police Force.
We only had peace officers.
Notice the crown ?
Quite simply the people did not need to be policed because we were peaceful.
The Commonwealth of Australia was a common law fee simple country.
We were safe in our homes and there was no need to lock the doors.
When Queen Elizabeth II was crowned in 1953, she actually took two crowns 3 days apart.
The first Crown, was the Imperial Crown as it was expected by the people, the second Crown was the St Edwards Crown, but the coronation was held in private.
So as you can see quite simply, just in the difference in Crowns on the peace officer and police badges today, it is quite evident that the line of authority to the Crown changed in this country.
It started early on in the 20s however it has been a slow ongoing progressive process since the 30s to undermine the Commonwealth of Australia men and womans sovereign power .
In 1973 Gough Whitlam formed the Australian government and dissolved the government of the Commonwealth of Australia without informing the people.
Also without informing the people, he enacted close to 40 different acts, not only unlawfully but were also missing Royal assent, by way of a Signet and proclamation, proper showing a clear line of authority to the Imperial Crown.
Just some of those acts…
Seas and submerged lands act 1974 took the land from the people.
The Australian citizenship ACT 1973, started to remove the people’s rights and therefore claims to the Commonwealth of Australia, by changing their allegiance to a foreign Crown.
The Australian government no matter who is in power is implementing United Nations resolutions into our law.
The Australian Government and opposition, are working together to give control of this country to the United Nations, after it has bankrupt not only the nation but also it’s people, being us.
We can stop this from happening, simply by Uniting as a people, under the correct Crown (imperial ) And flag (Red ensign) that the Commonwealth of Australia was formed under… the same Crownand flag our Anzacs fought to defend, so that we could continue to live free under the Imperial Crown.
many do not know that Australia was given a coronation stone, as a gift for services rendered, as we had proven our worth on the battlefield in defence of the Imperial Crown realm.
A coronation stone is a stone which marks the place of coronation of a monarch.
These were used in medieval Europe.
Particular stones popularly believed to have been used as coronation stones still exist, though some are considered by historians to have been invented in the early modern period.
The Treaty of Versailles and the Covenant of the League of Nations, signed by Hughes and Cook, were the first such international agreements ever signed by the Commonwealth of Australia in its own right.
In as much as the landing at Gallipoli might be interpreted as the so-called ‘birth of the nation’, so the presence of Hughes at Paris and the signing of the German treaty indicated Australia’s real arrival as a player on the stage of international diplomacy.
But undoubtedly that place had to a large extent been won for Hughes by the sacrifice of the nation in war and by the contribution of the Australian Imperial Force to victory.
The influence of the AIF was represented that afternoon of 28 June 1919 in the Galerie des Glaces in a curious way.
Two days before the signing ceremony the delegations had been informed that not only would they have to sign but that they must also affix their national seals to the document in wax.
Australia had no seal of its own so Hughes and Garran scoured the antique markets of Paris near the Hotel Majestic off the Champs Elysées, where the Australian delegation was staying.
Hughes fancied a seal depicting the ancient Greek hero Hercules slaying a lion only to be told by Garran, ‘No, Mr Hughes, you are not in the least like Hercules’.
Garran also rejects a seal with three legs reminding Hughes of his Welsh origins (Hughes came from Wales and he and Lloyd George were known, when agitated, to argue in Welsh!).
Finally, the seal actually used was fashioned from the tunic button of an AIF soldier’s uniform.
Considering the number of Australian graves stretching from Belgium, down through France and across the Mediterranean to Gallipoli it was an appropriate symbol to attach to the nation’s first treaty.
It was at this point in history that the Commonwealth of Australia put its big pants on only to have them removed by politicians of the day without the people of the Commonwealth of Australia having any idea what had even transpired.
However, it would be future politicians that would commit the worse acts of treasonous trespass against the Commonwealth of Australia and its people ever seen on our shores.
Many may not even be aware of such trespass still to this day.
Not only did we see the return and implementation of the once-banned st Edwards crown but low and behold the politicians actually changed the people’s allegiance and soverign standings from the Imperial Crown realm to that of the newly returned st Edwards crown realm as citizens on a ship citizenship and all without the approval or referendum of the people.
With that said the Commonwealth of Australia currently sits empty with only one member, can you guess who that is?
The politicians basically created a whole new realm with a new Bible a new constitution to run alongside the Commonwealth of Australia this new realm was called Australia.
Australia has a government, not a parliament.
Australia has its own Authority
Australia has a different bible
Australia has a different crown
Australia acts in maritime law
Australia follows the UN mandates.
Australia runs under a Catholic crown with a head of state that nobody has actually seen
Australia is not the Commonwealth of Australia they are extremely different.
Its time all Australians started to take an interest in our establishment for these criminals within it only need to remove one more thing to get away with and hide all their crimes.
That one thing is our Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act.
If these politicians manage to get a republic its all over for us Commonwealth of Australia men and women.
Trying to elect unconstitutional unlawful politicians into an unconstitutional illegitimate establishment and realm will not help us.
Going to court wont help us for the courts are now corporations themselves working for the corporate government de-facto administrator they are not upholding common law.
Those elected are powerless to change a thing for it’s not our de jure parliament.
People have to comprehend only a united people can fix these issues.
Why play in the sandpit politicians created when we can be in our own lawful Constitutional Imperial Crown realm Commonwealth of Australia the people created ?
Freedom has always come at a price.
That price has always been high no matter what price any Realm or congregation of men and women has had to pay for such a thing that is the right of all (freedom)
Today freedom is taken for granted and even given away with no consideration for the very lives it took to grant such a thing as freedom.
Its time many looked at the sacrifice made for those very freedom’s many today do not even bother to think about.
Here we have a hell of a list for you .
For Australia, the First World War remains the costliest conflict in terms of deaths and casualties. From a population of fewer than five million, 416,809 men enlisted, of whom more than 60,000 were killed and 156,000 wounded, gassed, or taken prisoner.
Deaths as a result of service with Australian units
There are a number of sources from which casualty statistics can be drawn. The figures below, the number of deaths as a result of service with Australian units, are derived from the Roll of Honour.
Questions of eligibility for the Roll of Honour are determined solely by the Memorial’s Council, and have been considered many times over the years by Council and before it by the Memorial’s Board.
When a name has been approved by Council as eligible for addition to the Roll of Honour for a current conflict, that name is added on Remembrance Day each year.
Conflict and Dates of conflict
Number of deaths
New Zealand 1860–61= Nil
Sudan 1885 = 9
South Africa 11 October 1899 to 31 May 1902 = 588
China 6 August 1900 to 25 April 1901= 6
First World War 4 August 1914 to 31 March 1921 =61,566
Second World War 3 September 1939 to 30 June 1947= 39,655
Australia (North Queensland Coast, bomb and mine clearance) 1947–50 =4
Japan (British Commonwealth Occupation Force) 1947-52 =3
Papua and New Guinea 1947-75= 13
Middle East (UNTSO; Operation Paladin) 1948 =1
Berlin Airlift 1948-49 =1
Malayan Emergency 16 June 1948 to 31 July 1960= 39
Kashmir
(United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan) 1948-85 =1
Korean War 27 June 1950 to 27 July 1953 =340
Malta 1952-55= 3
Korean War (Post-Armistice service – ceasefire monitoring) 1953-57= 16
Southeast Asia (SEATO) 1955-75 =7
Indonesian Confrontation 24 December 1962 to 11 August 1966= 21
Malay Peninsula 19 February 1964 to 11 August 1966= 2
Vietnam War 3 August 1962 to 29 April 1975= 521
Thailand 25 June 1965 to 31 August 1968= 2
Irian Jaya Operation Cenderawasih) 1976-81 =1
Western Sahara (MINURSO) 1991-94= 1
Somalia 20 October 1992 to 30 November 1994 =1
Border Protection 1997 – =2
Bougainville 1997-2003= 1
East Timor 16 September 1999 to 18 August 2003= 2
East Timor (Operation Astute) 1999-2013= 2
Afghanistan 11 October 2001 to present =43
Iraq 16 July 2003 to 31 July 2009= 3
Solomon Island (RAMSI – Operation Anode) 2003-13= 1
Indonesia (Operation Sumatra Assist) 2005= 9
Fiji 2006= 2
Total
102,868
The following numbers reflect only reported war deaths and exclude those wounded and/or missing. The Civil War maintains the highest American casualty total of any conflict. In its first 100 years of existence, over 683,000 Americans lost their lives, with the Civil War accounting for 623,026 of that total (91.2%).
List of wars by death toll
This list of wars by death toll includes death toll estimates of all deaths that are either directly or indirectly caused by war.
These numbers usually include the deaths of military personnel which are the direct results of battle or other military wartime actions, as well as the wartime/war-related deaths of soldiers, which are the results of war-induced epidemics, famines, atrocities, genocide, etc.
This list is incomplete; you can help by expanding it.
Conquests of Cyrus the Great 100,000
Greco–Persian Wars 73,800
Samnite Wars 33,500
Wars of Alexander the Great 142,000
Punic Wars 1,520,691 264
First Punic War 185,000
Second Punic War 770,000
Third Punic War 150,000–250,000
Kalinga War 150,000–200,000
Qin’s Wars of Unification 700,000
Cimbrian War 410,000–650,000
Gallic Wars 400,000–1,000,000
Jewish–Roman Wars 350,000–2,000,000
First Jewish–Roman War 270,000–1,358,400
Kitos War 440,000
Bar Kokhba Revolt 400,000–580,000
Gothic War (269) 320,000
Probus’s German War 400,000 +
Gothic War 40,000 +
Three Kingdoms War 36,000,000–40,000,000
Yellow Turban Rebellion 3,000,000–7,000,000
Hunnic Invasions 165,000+
Medieval wars
This list is incomplete; you can help by expanding it.
Note: the identity of a single “war” cannot be reliably given in some cases, and some “wars” can be taken to last over more than a human lifetime, e.g. “Reconquista” (711–1492, 781 years) “Muslim conquests in India” (12th to 16th c., 500 years) “Crusades” (ten or more campaigns during the period 1095–1291, 196 years), “Mongol conquests” (1206–1368, 162 years), “early Muslim conquests” (622–750, 128 years), “Hundred Year’s War” (1337–1453, 115 years).
– Part of the Crusades
Mongol conquests 30,000,000–40,000,000
Wars of Scottish Independence 60,000-150,000
Hundred Years’ War 2,300,000–3,300,000
Conquests of Timur 8,000,000–20,000,000
Conquests of Mehmed II ‘the Conqueror’ 873,000+ 873,000 1451–1481 Eastern Europe
Wars of the Roses 35,000–50,000
Modern wars
Modern wars with greater than 25,000 deaths by death toll
This list is incomplete; you can help by expanding it.
– Also known as the Great Wars of Italy
Spanish conquest of the Aztec Empire 24,300,000+
– Part of the European colonisation of the Americas, includes deaths due to European disease
Spanish conquest of the Inca Empire 8,400,000+
Campaigns of Suleiman the Magnificent 200,000+
German Peasants’ War 100,000+
French Wars of Religion 2,000,000–4,000,000 – Also known as the Huguenot Wars
Anglo-Spanish War 138,285+
Japanese invasions of Korea 1,000,000+
Qing conquest of the Ming 25,000,000+
Thirty Years’ War 3,000,000–11,500,000
Franco-Spanish War (1635–59) 200,000+
Wars of the Three Kingdoms 876,000+ 876,000 1639–1651 British Isles – Also known as the British Civil Wars
English Civil War 356,000–735,000
Mughal–Maratha Wars 5,000,000+ 1658-1707 India-Bangladesh
Franco-Dutch War 220,000+
Great Turkish War 120,000+
Great Northern War 350,000+ 350,000 .
War of the Spanish Succession 400,000
West Papua conflict 150,000-400,000
Just look at the figures they are astonishing.
I shall end this list here incomplete as there are so many more Im sure you the reader get the drift.
So next time you think theres nothing that mankind can do to protect such freedoms look at these figures and ask yourself is it worth surrendering our freedoms at all .
Even the littlest of rights is hard to restore.
Must we lose more lives to get them back after they are gone rather than fight to keep all mankinds unalienable rights liberties and freedoms already paid for in blood ?
We shall move along shall we .
Living in the Commonwealth of Australia
part 1: Common-wealth
Living as a free man or woman in the Commonwealth of Australia was achievable once.
All the systems were in place to help all prosper as free men and women of the Commonwealth of Australia.
When one was born in the (Commonwealth)one became a equal shareholder in our Common wealth.
It worked like this.
When one was born the establishment needed to know so that funds from our shared Common wealth could be released to build infastructures for that child as it grows .
So to keep track of the live born children of our Commonwealth a registry was formed.
The collection of records was done via church or live born records at hospitals.
The names of the children born would then go on the registrar of the Commonwealth as Commonwealth subjects ,this entitled them to their rights of the land as Commonwealth people .
The reason for this is that when that child reaches maturity he or she will need certain infastructures and services to live comfortably within our Commonwealth.
He or she will need
Hospitals
Roads
Healthcare
Protection (Army, Air Force, Navy ,police,fire services, judges) and so on .
He or she will need
Power
Water
Sewers
Treatment plants
He or she will also need
Refineries
Mines
Manufacturing plants
Export and import services
He or she will also require
Positions filled for those roles .
To do all these things cost $$$$
So these registrars were created, this is where being a shareholder in our Common wealth comes into play.
Our equal share of the Commonwealth is used to provide these things at no cost to you.
As a man or woman the only requirement of you is to go to work to suport yourself and increase your own personal wealth.
You are not required to pay tax as your Common wealth has already paid for any infastructures you may require and every man and women is entitled to the fruits of ones labor.
After all governments are in the business of making lives prosperous are they not ?
Well today they are not,they are in the business of sending you broke while they steal your Common wealth all while making you pay for services already payed for via your shareholdings.
They take your shareholdings and turn them into security bonds, trusts called Birth certificates and then use them on the stock markets to make a profit.
This Common wealth that belongs to the people, the men and women of the Imperial Crown realm Commonwealth of Australia, is not surposed to be in these trusts benefiting foreign entitys.
Our Common wealth is to build our nation so we can all prosper as a united free people .
These criminals
Run very deep in our establishment.
So deep that everything has been thrown on its head.
We have been handed over to an administrator living off the fruits of war.
(Usufruct)
These criminals turned every Commonwealth Australian including all assets and resources into commodities for their own gain.
They not only steal our Commonwealth but our personal wealth through legislation and unlawful income taxation .
They have occupied our realm with a foreign Crown and changed our laws to suit themselves and hidden in plain site information of a kingdom earned by the blood of our Anzacs.
God damn they even changed our flag and our allegiance.
We are free sovereign men and woman in our own right we are also subjects of the Christian protestant Imperial Crown british empire a constitutional monarchy under the common law of England (Gods law) ,we the people united as one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the blessing of Almighty God.
However Since the 50s we have been citizens of the st Edwards crown Roman Catholic empire without our consent under Admiralty Law of the sea hence the word citizen-ship.
The realy screwed up thing is we the people of the Commonwealth let them do it and get away with it.
Its time we all woke up and made things right again.
Living in the Commonwealth of Australia
Part 2 : Councils .
Living in the Commonwealth of Australia had many benefits.
Besides the absolute freedom one could experience living in the Imperial Crown realm Commonwealth of Australia ,we also had individual town servant’s called representatives/councilman and woman in every town and city across our nation.
Those representatives worked in a place we called councils.
Their role was to collect the will of the people from local towns and citys all over our country and deliver that will to the relevant state parliament .
State parliament representatives/MPs had the role of delivering the all the states/councils will to Federal Parliament for release of Commonwealth funding.
That will could be for new benches or a community garden bed, path ways ,pools ,skate parks, powerstations, roads,dams basically anything the town or city may require or may possibly need to aid in prosperity and or a higher quality of life for all living in and growing in the township.
Apart from the general duty of collecting the will of the people council dutys also include rubbish collection,Maintaining parks, swimming pools,roads, foot paths,grassed and garden areas as well as building infastructures and services for the people of the Australian townships .
How is this all paid for some may ask ?
The majority of people today would say through land rates and revenue collection and taxation ……. Wrong, land rates and revenue collection including taxation are unlawful governance in the Commonwealth of Australia,however we shall discuss that in another section on fee simple land ownership.
All these things are paid for from our Common-wealth.
Men and woman forget our Parliament has a license to print money thats what our treasury is for and we dont need foreign policy or approval from banks or foreign countries to do so
This is all partly explained in part one.
Councils are not a teir of parliament they are a parliament service.
Councils never had line of Authority to raise revenue fine or collect rates from fee simple lands .
We shall talk about fee simple land soon in another part.
Councils are a very important parliament service.
Without councils it would be very difficult to collect the will of the people from those townships and citys, so councils play an important role in collecting our will.
Without councils it would be very difficult to maintain and or build infastructures for us all.
The problem today is that councils have been turned into nothing more than a company business with the sole purpose of collecting your money rather than our will.
This has happened at all levels of governance today thanks to the stealth take over of our land by a foreign Crown, and we the people allow this injustice to continue.
Our Commonwealth of Australia was set up so well in my opinion however complacency and lack of action on our part has now seen the Commonwealth of Australia become the very opposite of free country.
Living in the Commonwealth of Australia
Part 3 general Welfare and some Imperial Crown protected rights.
Living in the Commonwealth of Australia was awesome, free men and women reigned ,
We had the freedom to live without Parliament intervention, to self govern under the Common law of England as a self governing colony with all the protections of our unalienable rights under God fully intact complete and reserved.
Many may say ,but Australia doesn’t have protected rights .
Thats a big mistake many make .
Infact our unalienable rights are protected in a few ways.
1. Magna Carta
2. Common law
3. Bill and Declaration of rights 1688 1689 UK
4. The Christian protestant king james bible
5. The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act.
It is the duty of the elected Commonwealth of Australia Parliament representatives to protect these rights for all present and future Australians.
With these rights protected by law the men and women of the Commonwealth of Australia could rest easy knowing that these rights will be protected for many decades to come.
Prosperity for all could now be achieved under lawful governance.
The Commonwealth of Australia was growing well.
Our manufacturing was everywhere and owning your own home was attainable and affordable.
Cars had no seat belts ,catching a ride in the back of a ute was common practice and cricket was played in our streets with many neighbours even joining in the fun.
Common sense was normal practice.
Traveling was free and unrestricted.
Licenses and registrations were never required for what are the rights of all of us.
We had the right to own property without Parliament intervention.
Land ownership was held in fee simple ,meaning, no rates or yearly fees to councils or otherwise applied ,you only paid tax once on the purchase.
However that doesn’t mean we couldn’t be taxed in other ways ,for instance commerce.
Personal income tax didn’t apply as all men and women were entitled to the fruits of their own labors.
Men and woman could do what ever they wished with their land as long as they didnt harm or impede on the unalienable rights of others or cause damage or harm to people or property around them after all its your castle is it not.
A man and womens land and home was ones castle and a castle where one could be teated as kings and Queens themselves.
We all had the right to own property without paying rent called rates to councils for the rest of our lives.
Parking didn’t require a fee .
Traveling on our roads didn’t require tolls ,after all it was our Common-wealth our labors and our resources that built them.
The lives of all Australians were less stressful due to minimal parliament intervention through fees and legislative revenue raising.
Parliament only had the power to create laws for good governance and no law could be created for the sole purpose of collecting revenue or placed burdened the people.
Children had respect and morals and
Education was of the highest standard.
Justice was served and judges were of highest moral standard and completely comprehended the importance of protecting mankinds rights freedoms and liberties,
after all its their duty to see justice served while protecting the rights of every individual.
One could not face penalties or imprisonment without due course and everyone had the right to be presumed inocent until factually proven guilty beyond a shadow of doubt in a competent court of jurisdiction.
Police were call peace officers and worked for the people.
Police could not just pull you over without lawful reason.
One had to be seen committing an offence or have a warrant out for ones arrest to be subject to detainment.
A crime was a crime only when an act of harm was committed.
Nobody was born with a crystal ball that can tell or predict future events or how they may transpire or who it may affect.
Justice was about justice never prevention.
Prevention was ones own common sense.
Parliament belonged to the people and followed the will of the people within the constraints of our Imperial Crown Common law our Commonwealth of Australia constitution Act and the morals beliefs and law of the Christian protestant king james bible.
After all these are the very foundations that built our Commonwealth of Australia.
Our general Welfare was of high standard.
Our peace officers did a marvelous job of protecting our people infact that was their job unlike todays revenue policy police force officers .
One could leave a door open and not worry to much about it,unlike today.
One could walk down the street feeling safe and secure.
How times have changed hey.
How much freedom do we have today ?
What changed ?
Its time all Australians started to take an intrest in our establishment.
Today we find ourselves way over governed so much so the the grubby establishment has its fingers in every aspect of our lives and demanding a fee/taxes for bloody everything including our rights, even for the damn air we breathe.
So ask yourselves why are we doing nothing about these injustices?
Why are we still going around in circles electing the same garbage into our establishment ?
Why are we not standing against these dictators ,why are we not standing in unity to remove them .
Honestly when was the last time Australians were ever considered or consulted by politicians making deals and treatys that effect each and every one of us .
Who the hell gave them authority to do such things without the approval of the people.
Australia is surposed to be a democracy,
Not a dictatorship disguised as democracy.
We all have a choice to make .
We can continue this insanity under the unconstitutional st Edwards crown with the politicians as the masters and risk civil unrest or we can return home to the Imperial crown Commonwealth of Australia where the people are the masters and put things right.
Without these foundations
The Commonwealth of Australia would have never been created.
Regardless of anyone’s arguments over religion and politics the fact still remains that the ,Commonwealth of Australia was built
on the foundations of,
The king james bible 1611, the Common law of England including, magna carta Declaration of rights and the bill of rights 1688 1689, and the commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 ,were as the people united to create one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Imperial Crown realm.
Its these foundations that gave Authority, freedom, liberty and prosperity to the people of the Commonwealth of Australia.
Its on these foundations that our people received justice for those that Trespass against them.
Its on these foundations That men and women were free to live in peace when creating no harm to others.
When are people going to wake up.
Life is not about submitting to government,
Life is about living.
Every one has the right to be left in peace when creating no harm .
Its by these foundations that mankind could finally be free from the control of others ,to live as equals.
The problem is that greed ,egos, self serving dictatorships and individuals with aspirations of power and control over others decided to take away your birth right to govern thy self, your share of the Common Wealth all all your true power and hide it all away from you.
Is it not time that mankind took responsibility for its own actions or lack of.
You can continue to be Governed as revenue slaves in a realm not of your own or you can come home and Govern thy self in the realm gifted to you by our forefathers and AIF Anzacs.
Yes I hear you .
What about our land.
Living in the Commonwealth part 4
Well as you may have seen I spoken of fee simple land
This one is a tricky subject.
Fee simple Land grants in the Commonwealth of Australia.
Free land in the Commonwealth of Australia.
Who was entitled to a land grant?
Free Settlers and Emancipists
Free settlers and ex-convicts who were ‘of good conduct and disposition to industry’ were entitled to a land grant. Each male was entitled to 30 acres, an additional 20 acres if married, and 10 acres for each child with him in the settlement at the time of the grant (Historical Records of Australia 1.1.14). To encourage free settlers to the colony, Phillip received additional Instructions dated 20 August 1789 (HRA 1.1.124-8) entitling non-commissioned Marine Officers to 100 acres and privates to 50 acres over and above the quantity allowed to convicts. Other settlers coming to the colony were also to be given grants.
Women
Women were also entitled to receive a grant of land – the first possibly being Ellenor Frazer on 20 February 1794.
Military
From 20 August 1789, non-commissioned Marine Officers were entitled to receive 100 acres more (and Privates up to 50 acres more) than the quantity allowed for convicts. Commissioned Officers were excluded from land grants under the original instructions. It was not until 1792 that land grants were made to officers by the Acting Governor Francis Grose.
Land grants issued during the Rum Rebellion 1808-1809 were cancelled by Governor Macquarie but those which had been granted to “very deserving and Meritorious Persons” he later renewed (HRA 1.7.268).
Fees for land grants from 1825
In 1825 the sale of land by private tender began (Instructions to Governor Brisbane, 17 July 1825, HRA 1.12.107-125). There were still to be grants without purchase but they were not to exceed 2,560 acres or be less than 320 acres unless in the immediate vicinity of a town or village. The Instructions required the Governor to arrange for a new Survey of the colony and the division of the settled districts into Counties, Hundreds and Parishes. The unoccupied lands were then to be valued and eventually sold by tender, if not otherwise reserved, at not less than the average value for that parish. This scheme was slow in being implemented (HRA 1.16.274).
Limits of location and the nineteen counties
On 5 September 1826, a Government order allowed Governor Darling to create the limits of location. Settlers were only permitted to take up land within this area. A further Government order of 14 October 1829 extended these boundaries to an area defined as the Nineteen Counties.
No free land grants after 1831
In a despatch dated 9 January 1831, Viscount Goderich instructed that no more free grants (except those already promised) be given. All land was thenceforth to be sold at public auction (HRA 1.16.22) and revenue from the sale of land was to go toward the immigration of labourers. Likewise the practice of granting land as “marriage portions” to the children of colonists was discontinued (HRA 1.16.353, 793). The new regulations were notified in a Government Notice of 1 July 1831 and published in a Government Order dated 1 August 1831.
Following this, land was sold by public auction without restrictions being placed on the area to be acquired. After 1831 the only land that could be made available for sale was within the Nineteen Counties. This restriction was brought about to reduce the cost of administration and to stem the flow of settlers to the outer areas.
In English law, a fee simple or fee simple absolute is an estate in land, a form of freehold ownership.
It is a way that real estate and land may be owned in common law countries, and is the highest possible ownership interest that can be held in real property.
In the Imperial Crown Realm Commonwealth
We all are entitled to fee simple lands.
However this is not out right ownership.
Feudal tenur
Fief and Feudal land tenure in England
Historically in the system of feudalism, the lords who received land directly from the Crown were called tenants-in-chief.
They doled out portions of their land to lesser tenants in exchange for services, who in turn divided it among even lesser tenants.
This process—that of granting subordinate tenancies—is known as subinfeudation.
In this way, all individuals except the monarch were said to hold the land “of” someone else.
Historically, it was usual for there to be reciprocal duties between lord and tenant.
There were different kinds of tenure to fit various kinds of duties that a tenant might owe to a lord. For instance, a military tenure might be by knight-service, requiring the tenant to supply the lord with a number of armed horsemen.
The concept of tenure has since evolved into other forms, such as leases and estates.
Modes of ownership and tenure .
There is a great variety of modes of land ownership and tenure.
Traditional land tenure
For example, most of the indigenous nations or tribes of North America had differing notions of land ownership.
Whereas European land ownership centered around control, Indigenous notions were based on stewardship.
When Europeans first came to North America, they sometimes disregarded traditional land tenure and simply seized land, or they accommodated traditional land tenure by recognizing it as aboriginal title.
This theory formed the basis for treaties with indigenous peoples.
Ownership of land by swearing to make productive use of it.
In several developing countries such as Egypt, Senegal, this method is still presently in use.
In Senegal, it is mentioned as “mise en valeur des zones du terroir” and in Egypt, it is called Wadaa al-yad.
Allodial title .
Allodial title is a system in which real property is owned absolutely free and clear of any superior landlord or sovereign.
True allodial title is rare, with most property ownership in the common law world (Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, United Kingdom, United States) being in fee simple.
Allodial title is inalienable, in that it may be conveyed, devised, gifted, or mortgaged by the owner, but it may not be distressed and restrained for collection of taxes or private debts, or condemned (eminent domain) by the government.
Feudal land tenure .
Feudal land tenure is a system of mutual obligations under which a royal or noble personage granted a fiefdom — some degree of interest in the use or revenues of a given parcel of land — in exchange for a claim on services such as military service or simply maintenance of the land in which the lord continued to have an interest.
This pattern obtained from the level of high nobility as vassals of a monarch down to lesser nobility whose only vassals were their serfs.
Fee simple
Under common law, Fee simple is the most complete ownership interest one can have in real property, other than the rare Allodial title.
You can find a great video on fee simple land in our video section.
The holder can typically freely sell or otherwise transfer that interest or use it to secure a mortgage loan.
This picture of “complete ownership” is, of course, complicated by the obligation in most places to pay a property tax and by the fact that if the land is mortgaged, there will be a claim on it in the form of a lien.
In modern societies, this is the most common form of land ownership.
Land can also be owned by more than one party and there are various concurrent estate rules.
Native title .
In Australia, native title is a common law concept that recognizes that some indigenous people have certain land rights that derive from their traditional laws and customs.
Native title can co-exist with non-indigenous proprietary rights and in some cases different indigenous groups can exercise their native title over the same land.
There are approximately 160 registered determinations of native title, spanning some 16% of Australia’s land mass.
The case of Mabo overturned the decision in Milirrpum and repudiated the notion of terra nullius.
Subsequent Parliamentary Acts passed recognised the existence of this common law doctrine.
Life estate .
Under common law, Life estate is an interest in real property that ends at death.
The holder has the use of the land for life, but typically no ability to transfer that interest or to use it to secure a mortgage loan.
Fee tail
Under common law, fee tail is hereditary, non-transferable ownership of real property.
A similar concept, the legitime, exists in civil and Roman law; the legitime limits the extent to which one may disinherit an heir.
Leasehold .
Under both common law and civil law, land may be leased or rented by its owner to another party.
A wide range of arrangements are possible, ranging from very short terms to the 99-year leases common in the United Kingdom, and allowing various degrees of freedom in the use of the property.
Common land.
Rights to use a common may include such rights as the use of a road or the right to graze one’s animals on commonly owned land.
Sharecropping .
When sharecropping, one has use of agricultural land owned by another person in exchange for a share of the resulting crop or livestock.
Easement .
Easements allow one to make certain specific uses of land that is owned by someone else.
The most classic easement is right-of-way, but it could also include (for example) the right to run an electrical power line across someone else’s land.
Other.
In addition, there are various forms of collective ownership, which typically take either the form of membership in a cooperative, or shares in a corporation, which owns the land (typically by fee simple, but possibly under other arrangements).
There are also various hybrids; in many communist states, government ownership of most agricultural land has combined in various ways with tenure for farming collectives.
Currently the Commonwealth of Australia
Operates unconstitutionally under torrens Title.
The people had no say in this ,no referendum to change from fee simple at all.
So what is Torrens title ?
Torrens title is a land registration and land transfer system, in which a state creates and maintains a register of land holdings, which serves as the conclusive evidence (termed “indefeasibility”) of title of the person recorded on the register as the proprietor (owner), and of all other interests recorded on the register.
The interests that are not guaranteed are called “paramount interests”.
Ownership of land is transferred by registration of a transfer of title, instead of by the use of deeds.
The Registrar would provide a Certificate of Title to the new proprietor, which is merely a copy of the related folio of the register.
The alleged benefit of the system is to enhance certainty of title to land and to simplify dealings involving land.
The system has been adopted by many countries, especially those in the Commonwealth of Nations, and has been extended to cover other interests, including credit interests (such as mortgages), leaseholds and strata titles.
The design and introduction in 1858 of the Torrens system in South Australia is generally attributed to Sir Robert Richard Torrens (1814–1884), who was Premier of the then colony, though some attribute the design to another.
The Torrens title system operates on the principle of “title by registration” (granting the high indefeasibility of a registered ownership) rather than “registration of title”.
The system does away with the need for proving a chain of title (i.e. tracing title through a series of documents).
The State guarantees title, and the system is usually supported by a compensation scheme for those who lose their title due to private fraud or error in the State’s operation.
In most jurisdictions, there will be parcels of land which are still unregistered.
The Torrens system works on three principles:
Mirror principle – the register reflects (mirrors) accurately and completely the current facts about title to each registered lot.
This means that each dealing affecting a lot (such as a transfer of title, a mortgage or discharge of same, a lease, an easement or a covenant) must be entered on the register and so be viewable by anyone.
Curtain principle – one does not need to go behind the Certificate of Title as it contains all the information about the title.
This means that ownership need not be proved by long complicated documents that are kept by the owner, as in the Private Conveyancing system.
All of the necessary information regarding ownership is on the Certificate of Title.
Indemnity principle – provides for compensation of loss caused by private fraud or by errors made by the Registrar of Titles.
At common law, the vendor of land needs to show his or her ownership of the land by tracing the chain of ownership back to the earliest grant of land by the Crown to its first owner.
The documents relating to transactions with the land are collectively known as the “title deeds” or the “chain of title”.
This event may have occurred hundreds of years prior and could have had dozens of intervened changes in the land’s ownership.
A person’s ownership over land could also be challenged, potentially causing great legal expense to land owners and hindering development.
Even an exhaustive title search of the chain of title would not give the purchaser complete security, largely because of the principle, nemo dat quod non habet (“no one gives what he does not have”) and the ever-present possibility of undetected outstanding interests.
For example, in the UK Court of Chancery case Pilcher v Rawlins (1872),the vendor conveyed the fee-simple estate p1, but retained the title deeds and fraudulently purported to convey the fee-simple estate p2.
The latter could receive only the title retained by the vendor—in short, nothing.
However, the case was ultimately decided in favor of P2, over P1.
The courts of equity could not bring themselves to decide against a totally innocent (without notice) purchaser.
The common-law position has been changed in minor respects by legislation designed to minimize the searches that should be undertaken by a prospective purchaser. In some jurisdictions, a limitation has been placed on the period of commencement of title a purchaser may require.
Deeds registration
The effect of registration under the deeds registration system was to give the instrument registered “priority” over all instruments that are either unregistered or not registered until later.
The basic difference between the deeds registration and Torrens systems is that the former involves registration of instruments while the latter involves registration of title.
Moreover, though a register of who owned what land was maintained, it was unreliable and could be challenged in the courts at any time.
The limits of the deeds-registration system meant that transfers of land were slow, expensive, and often unable to create certain title.
Confused yet ?
All good as our constitution states all lands to be held in fee simple ,there has been no referendum to change that making torrens Title unconstitutional.
But wait here is an important video link that explains the trespass against us when it comes to our lands and that of our family/clan name that should shed some light for all of us .
Remember the trespass against us is everywhere.
So what are we entitled to as free living breathing men and women of the Commonwealth of Australia if not freedom liberty and prosperity ?
It may come as a shock to many clueless individuals, however we shall remind you all yet again.
Free men and women are entitled and have the right to.
- Freedom liberty and prosperity .
- The right to absolute land ownership free from fees and rates.
- The right to Our daily bread and the fruits of our labors in full.
- The right to Fair working conditions and rate of pay.
- The right to Freely travel when not acting in commerce.
- The right to All Unalienable rights and fundamental freedoms and liberties protected and reserved.
- The right to live in peace when creating no harm.
- The right to live in private
- The right to the presumption of innocence until factually proven guilty beyond a shadow of doubt by a jury of ones peers.
- The right to protection or resolution from intrusive unlawful governance.
- The right to live free from penalty or prosecution when creating no harm.
- The right to be the masters of our creation called Parliament.
- The right to hold arms for ones personal protection.
- The right to self ownership self governance and self determination.
- The right to immediate protection and or resolution from those who trespass against your rights,including government trespass against us.
- The right to abolish any form of government that becomes detrimental to the health freedoms and liberties of the free people.
- The right to shelter from the elements and a safe place to lay ones head .
- The right to a fair trial.
- The right to choose ones own path independent of Government policy.
- The right to be free from Government revenue raising, interference and oppressive policy.
- The right to contract or not to contract.
- The right to freedom of speech and expression.
- The right to love who we choose .
- The to associate.
- The right to a sovereign life
These are just a few there are to many to list here.
Its astonishing how so many are happy to give up these rights and more.
Have we really become that uninterested in our own right to self determination ?
If one was to see some one deliberately hurting oneself would they step in to stop that someone continuing to harm oneself ?
Most would im sure, yet not many stand up to end this trespass perpetrated against us by government.
Our fellow indoctrinated Commonwealth Australians are not only harming themselves but everyone around them to.
The majority know how corrupt government has become, and how detrimental government has become in regards to our rights as living free men and women and that of our future prosperity .
How can one be truly free when government including individuals trespass against us ?
we have no recourse no justice.
If you think justice still exists in our Commonwealth you would be gravely mistaken.
These days it seems the only justice we shall find is the justice we hand out ourselves.
The politicians court systems and police have made that very clear.
I dont condone violence however I can see clearly why so many are beginning to take justice into their own hands.
The people we elect to uphold and protect of way of life and fundamental rights and freedoms have failed in all aspects of their employment roles .
This unlawful system of governance we see today has caused much harm and injury to many free lawfully acting men and women .
We see many good lawful men and women being classed as criminals, imprisoned fined forced into bankruptcy having their families torn apart and destroyed, massive amounts of burden and harm forced upon them and for what ?
Money power and control plain and simple.
These criminals in our establishment have breached every unalienable right we have including our right to be the masters of our creation called Parliament and most of you weak minded soft cocks continue to remain silent against such tyranny.
Its obvious that many individuals are nothing more than little dictators and they are everywhere.
These little dictators hide behind words like prevention and for the greater good however they just push their agendas and force their will onto others by removing our rights .
These people are the enemy of a free people.
They seem to think they have a right to push their will on others.
This they do not.
These kinds of people could live with you right now.
We are all different and thats ok, what is good for one could be bad for another we are individuals we may be equal however we are not all the same .
We all have needs and wants ,however this doesn’t give an individual the right to interfere or molester the rights of another.
We are all endowed by the Creator with our fundamental rights and nobody has any right to remove them unless we cause harm cause injury .
This should be common bloody sense to all.
You wouldn’t allow some stranger to enter your home or body without your permission would you ?
You wouldn’t allow some stranger to enter your home or body and start telling you what to do
Would you .
Yet you allow parliament intrusion into all aspects of our lives and attack those who stand up for their fundamental right to be self governing in control of their own self determination.
I see a future that looks very bad for those little dictators.
I see a future Australia crippled by civil unrest, a uncertain future indeed and its all because of little dictators that believe they have the right to remove the rights of others yet protect their own bubbles just self-serving and selfish to say the least.
You will reap what you sowed little dictators.
Better be careful what you wish for as karma has a hell of a bite.
When free men and women are forced into a corner we have only two options, fight or flight.
Unfortunately for the little dictators out there the majority of free people will choose fight to the death everytime ,for there is nothing more important then the right to freedom liberty and prosperity.
It is not the right of one to choose the path of another.
The origins of the Christian protestant Imperial Crown realm.
Institutional Anti-Catholicism in the United Kingdom has its origins in the English and Irish Reformations under King Henry VIII and the Scottish Reformation led by John Knox. Within England the Act of Supremacy 1534 declared the English crown to be “the only supreme head on earth of the Church in England” in place of the pope. Any act of allegiance to the latter was considered treasonous because the papacy claimed both spiritual and political power over its followers. Ireland was brought under direct English control starting in 1536 during the Tudor conquest of Ireland. The Scottish Reformation in 1560 abolished Catholic ecclesiastical structures and rendered Catholic practice illegal in Scotland. Today, anti-Catholicism is common in peripheral areas of the United Kingdom, mainly Scotland and Northern Ireland.
The rise of Imperial protestant England and the ping pong match with Catholicism .
Anti-Catholicism among many of the English was grounded in the fear that the pope sought to reimpose not just religio-spiritual authority over England but also secular power in alliance with arch-enemy France or Spain. In 1570, Pope Pius V sought to depose Queen Elizabeth who ruled England and Ireland with the papal bull Regnans in Excelsis, which declared her a heretic and purported to dissolve the duty of all Elizabeth’s subjects of their allegiance to her. This rendered Elizabeth’s subjects who persisted in their allegiance to the Catholic Church politically suspect, and made the position of her Catholic subjects largely untenable if they tried to maintain both allegiances at once. The Recusancy Acts, making it a legal obligation to worship in the Anglican faith, date from Elizabeth’s reign. Later, assassination plots in which Catholics were prime movers fueled anti-Catholicism in England. In 1603, James VI of Scotland became also James I of England and Ireland.
The Glorious Revolution of 1689 involved the overthrow of King James II, who converted to Catholicism before he became king and favoured the Catholics, and his replacement by son-in-law William III, a Dutch Protestant. The Act of Settlement 1701, which was passed by the Parliament of England, stated the heir to the throne must not be a “Papist” and that an heir who is a Catholic or who marries one will be excluded from the succession to the throne. This law was extended to Scotland through the Act of Union which formed the Kingdom of Great Britain. The Act was amended in 2013 as regards marriage to a Catholic and the ecumenical movement has contributed to reducing sectarian tensions in the country.
The Act of Supremacy issued by King Henry VIII in 1534 declared the king to be “the only supreme head on earth of the Church in England” in place of the pope. Any act of allegiance to the latter was considered treasonous because the papacy claimed both spiritual and political power over its followers. It was under this act that Thomas More and John Fisher were executed and became martyrs to the Catholic faith.
The Act of Supremacy (which asserted England’s independence from papal authority) was repealed in 1554 by Henry’s devoutly Catholic daughter Queen Mary I when she reinstituted Catholicism as England’s state religion. She executed many Protestants by burning. Her actions were reversed by a new Act of Supremacy passed in 1559 under her successor, Elizabeth I, along with an Act of Uniformity which made worship in Church of England compulsory. Anyone who took office in the English church or government was required to take the Oath of Supremacy; penalties for violating it included hanging and quartering. Attendance at Anglican services became obligatory—those who refused to attend Anglican services, whether Roman Catholics or Protestants (Puritans), were fined and physically punished as recusants.
Elizabethan regime Edit
Foxe’s Book of Martyrs helped shape lasting popular notions of Catholicism in Britain.
In the time of Elizabeth I, the persecution of the adherents of the Reformed religion, both Anglicans and Protestants alike, which had occurred during the reign of her elder half-sister Queen Mary I was used to fuel strong anti-Catholic propaganda in the hugely influential Foxe’s Book of Martyrs. Those who had died in Mary’s reign, under the Marian Persecutions, were effectively canonised by this work of hagiography. In 1571, the Convocation of the Church of England ordered that copies of the Book of Martyrs should be kept for public inspection in all cathedrals and in the houses of church dignitaries. The book was also displayed in many Anglican parish churches alongside the Holy Bible
First Act of Supremacy 1534 Edit
The first Act of Supremacy was passed on 3 November 1534 (26 Hen. VIII c. 1) by the Parliament of England.[1] It granted King Henry VIII of England and subsequent monarchs Royal Supremacy, such that he was declared the supreme head of the Church of England. Royal Supremacy is specifically used to describe the legal sovereignty of the civil laws over the laws of the Church in England.
The act declared that the king was “the only supreme head on Earth of the Church of England” and that the English crown shall enjoy “all honours, dignities, preeminences, jurisdictions, privileges, authorities, immunities, profits, and commodities to the said dignity.”[2] The wording of the act made clear that Parliament was not granting the king the title (thereby suggesting that they had the right to withdraw it later); rather, it was acknowledging an established fact. In the Act of Supremacy, Henry abandoned Rome completely. He thereby asserted the independence of the Ecclesia Anglicana. He appointed himself and his successors as the supreme rulers of the English church. Henry had been declared “Defender of the Faith” (Fidei defensor) in 1521 by Pope Leo X for his pamphlet accusing Martin Luther of heresy.[3] Parliament later conferred this title upon Henry in 1544.[4]
The 1534 Act marks the beginning of the English Reformation. There were a number of reasons for this Act, primarily the need for a male heir to the throne. Henry tried for years to obtain an annulment of his marriage to Catherine of Aragon, and had convinced himself that God was punishing him for marrying his brother’s widow.[5]Pope Clement VII refused to grant the annulment because, according to Roman Catholic teaching, a validly contracted marriage is indivisible until death, and thus the pope cannot annul a marriage simply because of a canonical impediment previously dispensed.[6] The Treasons Act was later passed: it provided that to disavow the Act of Supremacy and to deprive the King of his “dignity, title, or name” was to be considered treason.[7] The most famous public figure to resist the Treason Act was Sir Thomas More.
Henry’s Act of Supremacy was repealed in 1554 in the reign of his staunchly Roman Catholic daughter, Queen Mary I. It was reinstated by Mary’s Protestant half-sister, Queen Elizabeth I, when she ascended the throne. Elizabeth declared herself Supreme Governor of the Church of England, and instituted an Oath of Supremacy, requiring anyone taking public or church office to swear allegiance to the monarch as head of the Church and state. Anyone refusing to take the oath could be charged with treason.
The use of the term Supreme Governor as opposed to Supreme Head pacified some Roman Catholics and those Protestants concerned about a female leader of the Church of England. Elizabeth, who was a politique, did not prosecute layman nonconformists, or those who did not follow the established rules of the Church of England unless their actions directly undermined the authority of the English monarch, as was the case in the vestments controversy. Thus, it was through the Second Act of Supremacy that Elizabeth I officially established the now reformed Church of England.
Historian G. R. Elton argues that, “in law and political theory the Elizabethan supremacy was essentially parliamentary, while Henry VIII’s had been essentially personal.”[10] Supremacy was extinguished under Cromwell, but restored in 1660. The Stuart kings used it as a justification for controlling the appointment of bishops. Richard Hooker put it in a nutshell:
There is not any man of the Church of England but the same man is a member of the Commonwealth, nor a member of the Commonwealth which is not also a member of the Church of England.
The Act of Settlement
James II’s flight in 1688 had given Parliament the opportunity to alter the succession to the English throne and to elect a King. Having once used this power to offer the throne to William and Mary, Parliament was not hesitant in exercising its influence over the succession again.
Apart from enacting as statute the rights of the subject, the 1689 Bill of Rights legislated that the succession to the throne would pass first to any children of James II’s two daughters Mary and Anne before going to any children born to William by a second marriage. Furthermore, it stated that Catholics or those married to Catholics could not succeed to the throne.
The Protestant Succession
There was little concern in 1689 that the Protestant Succession was in danger, but there was unease when Queen Mary died in December 1694 without leaving any children.
This turned to great concern when the Duke of Gloucester, the only surviving child of Princess Anne, died aged 11 in July 1700. This left Anne’s half-brother James, the infant whose birth in June 1688 had spurred William of Orange to invade, Anne’s successor.
The Hanover connection
In June 1701 Parliament hoped to resolve this problem by passing the Act of Settlement. It confirmed the provision of the Bill of Rights that no Catholic or person with a Catholic spouse could sit on the throne.
The Act also legislated that, to preserve the Protestant Succession in case neither Anne nor William had any more children, the Crown would pass at Anne’s death to a Protestant relation. This was Sophia, the electress of Hanover in Germany, the granddaughter of James I by his daughter Elizabeth, and first cousin to Charles II and James II.
Sophia’s son George I succeeded to the throne upon Anne’s death in 1714, and his descendants, including the current Queen, have ruled Britain ever since – all because of a decision of Parliament in 1701 to alter the succession and to choose its own monarch.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_Supremacy
http://www.1611-king-james-bible.com/history.html
http://www.britannia.com/history/articles/relpolh8.html
Imperial Acts and historys.
Imperial Conferences (Colonial Conferences before 1907) were periodic gatherings of government leaders from the self-governing colonies and dominions of the British Empire between 1887 and 1937, before the establishment of regular Meetings of Commonwealth Prime Ministers in 1944. They were held in 1887, 1894, 1897, 1902, 1907, 1911, 1921, 1923, 1926, 1930, 1932 and 1937.
All the conferences were held in London, the seat of the Empire, except for the 1894 and 1932 conferences which were held in Ottawa, the capital of the senior Dominion of the Crown.
The 1907 conference changed the name of the meetings to Imperial Conferences and agreed that the meetings should henceforth be regular rather than taking place while overseas statesmen were visiting London for royal occasions (e.g. jubilees and coronations
Main picture
King George V (front, centre) with his prime ministers in 1926. Standing (left to right): Walter Stanley Monroe (Newfoundland), Gordon Coates (New Zealand), Stanley Bruce (Australia), J. B. M. Hertzog (Union of South Africa), W. T. Cosgrave (Irish Free State). Seated: Stanley Baldwin (United Kingdom), King George V, William Lyon Mackenzie King (Canada).
https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/19587931
https://www.foundingdocs.gov.au/item-did-24.html
http://www.open.ac.uk/researchprojects/makingbritain/content/imperial-conference