So Disney's owned by the crown?. King Charles tells DeSantis he's not going to do that to Disney are you kidding me right now
(twitter.com)
🧐 Research Wanted 🤔
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (48)
sorted by:
Just want to make a comment that I think need clarification re: "The Crown"
The Crown in Britain is not the person who wears the crown. Rather, the "crown" is the authority established and embodied by the body of law in British history, including the Magna Carta, the 1689 Bill of Rights, all the common law, etc.
While it is obvious to many that the British Monarchy became an instrument of the Cabal, it's also true that the Monarch's themselves are not that instrument, but are rather the subjects or instruments of the Crown.
From a legal perspective, the British Monarch cannot just do whatever they want. They are bound by law, just as much as any citizen of Britain or subject of the Crown. The fact that behind the scenes, the law has been violated over and over and over does not contradict this fact, but enforces it.
The real problem here is unlawful and illegal behavior, NOT the Crown itself. Rather, the Crown itself needs to be returned to lawfulness, just as much as the US government needs to be brought back under the control of the People and returned to lawfulness.
FYI, that's something I didn't know until recent years, but its important to understand. The British Monarch is lawfully and legally able to reign because their authority rests in the Law and by the consent of their People, represented by Parliament.
I’m sorry but you are incorrect in your assessment of the crown’s legal authority being limited. The concept of an “unwritten” constitution is a legal fallacy and is just an excuse used by legal academics in the uk to attempt to justify what is technically absolute authority held by the crown. The only real limitation on the crown is a historical one. By this I mean that the monarchy’s only limitation is how much the public is willing to take. If you were to ask any law professor in the uk about this they will foolishly tell you that the monarch is the final protection the British people have against abuse by government (a laughable proposition). I hold a UK law degree and I’m also a practicing barrister.
Thanks for your input. I'm still a novice in this area. The knowledge I have is rooted essentially in the Australian context, with regards to the law as it refers to Australians under the Australian Constitution Act of 1901, as passed by the British Parliament.
Obviously, in the field of law and legality, etc, there are widely varying opinions.
By the way, did I say that the Crown's legal authority is limited? I meant to state that the authority of the individual who is the Monarch is limited, and to draw a distinction between the "Crown" and that individual.
I look forward to any further input you might have. BTW, how long have you been practicing? And what brought you to the Great Awakening?
I would say the monarch’s power is absolute and any safe guards against this are easily circumvented.