Wonders Abound
We got to thinking a while back that, well, if "the" President isn't occupying the actual intended presidential office, and if the military is being used as a mercenary force, what else doesn't smell right?
We decided to look and apply the same methods of historical research and public record deduction to other institutions, offices, and subjects.
We were shocked, but not too shocked, to discover that both King Charles III and King Charles of Scotland are acting out of school and neither one of them have been crowned in the crucial jurisdiction necessary to actually be and act with the powers of a king.
Hmmmm.
So what have they been up to?
Essentially they are acting as glorified business executives, one in the jurisdiction of the air (His Imperial Majesty, King Charles III) and one in international jurisdiction (His Royal Majesty, King Charles of Scotland) and absolutely nobody is sitting at home on either the English or Scottish throne --- perhaps this denouement is even a shock to them, as it has been this way for a long time, long before either of these men were born.
Queen Anne started the practice as of 1707 with the settlement of The War of the Spanish Succession. She ascended the throne of Great Britain, which is not the same as and exists in a different jurisdiction than the Throne of England.
Other Monarchs returned to the normal course and sat on the Thrones of England and Scotland after that, but in the middle of the Nineteenth Century, Queen Victoria went a bit balmy after her husband's death, and not only vacated the English Throne in favor of the "throne" of Great Britain, but fancied herself as Empress of India, too.
All her various children ensconced in various Royal Households throughout Europe went on to play the same games.
It is an eternal truth that you can't really sit on two chairs at the same time, so that gives you the gist of the current dilemma: Charles III is covering the bases in the jurisdiction of the air, Charles of Scotland is covering the Chair of the Estates in international jurisdiction, and nobody is at home covering the soil jurisdiction of the homelands.
Charles III hasn't ever occupied the Throne of England and King Charles of Scotland hasn't actually occupied the Throne of Scotland. Both have been too busy shuffling business deals and managing assets to do the good old hum-drum -- with the inevitable result that both "Kings" are legless.
If you don't stand on the soil of your own country, you have no standing at all.
Even the faithful Hereditary Lord High Steward, Ivan Talbot, who instinctively moved to cover the empty throne with his claims back in the 1990's, was confused by it and didn't fully realize the magnitude of the situation.
The facts -- that the soil jurisdiction could have been lost to foreign creditors except for Talbot's action, and that the Queen didn't occupy the soil jurisdiction of England during her seventy-year reign -- are still sinking in.
** continued in comments **
As for the pope, Pope Benedict did not renounce his "munus."
"What are the requirements for a valid Papal resignation? — These are found in the 1983 Code of Canon Law, Canon 332 §2;
§ 2. Si contingat ut Romanus Pontifex muneri suo renuntiet, ad validitatem requiritur ut renuntiatio libere fiat et rite manifestetur, non vero ut a quopiam acceptetur.
What is the first condition or requirement, then, according to Canon 332 §2 for a valid papal resignation? — That it happens that the Roman Pontiff renounce his munus (muneri suo renuntiet).
Does the text of Pope Benedict renounce the munus? — No, it says clearly declaro me ministerio … renuntiare.
If the renunciation does not regard the munus, does canon 332 §2 even apply? — Yes and no. Yes, because since it does not fulfill the condition of a resignation within the term (in this case, munus) of Canon 332 §2, its not valid. And no, inasmuch as being a juridic act which is outside the terms of Canon 332 §2 it does not regard a papal resignation, but merely a retirement from active ministry."
"If both the text of the Code of Canon Law and canonical tradition require the mention of munus in a papal resignation, then in virtue of Canon 17, do those who claim Benedict’s renunciation of ministerium is valid, have any ground to stand upon? — No, none at all.
Then, must all Catholics recognize that in virtue of the law itself, the resignation is invalid? — Yes.
Does not the fact that the Cardinals all act as if it were valid, mean anything? — No, because according to canon 332 §2, even if the whole world held it to be valid, if it does not meet the conditions of Canon 332 §2, it is not valid. There is no wiggle room here.
But does not the very fact a Conclave was held in March of 2013 to elect a new pope make the resignation of Benedict XVI valid? Does not his tacit consent to this make it valid? — No on both accounts. First of all, because nothing makes a resignation valid except its conformity to canon 332 §2. Second, because by Divine Institution, the Petrine Munus cannot be shared by more than one individual. Ergo, if Benedict did not renounce it, he retains it. If he retains it, its contrary to divine law to elect another pope so long as he lives. And in his act of renunciation he never ordered a Conclave to be called in his lifetime. That he consented to such a thing may be either because of fear or of substantial error as regards what is necessary to resign his office. If it is fear, it does not make it valid. If he is in substantial error, then in accord with Canon 188, its expressly invalid by the law itself."
https://vericatholici.wordpress.com/2018/12/19/how-and-why-pope-benedict-xvis-resignation-is-invalid-by-the-law-itself/
Therefore, Pope Francis is not a valid pope.