With the death of Queen Elizabeth II on September 8, 2022, and the "breaking of the wand", the symbol of the Lord Chamberlain of the Household and the most senior officer in the Royal household, on September 19 at St George's Chapel, Windsor Castle, the final seal was enacted on the Covenant that existed between the we the people and our representatives in Parliament, and the reigning Monarch. The announcement of the Coronation of King Charles III and Camilla on May 6, 2023, further demands we expose this Monarchy for what it is: bankrupt and corrupt. Sovereignty must now lie with the people.

The phrase "The King is Dead, Long Live the King" dates back in England to 1272 and was introduced to ensure the order of succession. At the time, the Royal Council proclaimed: "The throne shall never be empty; the country shall never be without a monarch." It is the case that upon the death of Elizabeth II, it was similarly announced that Charles was now King. However, King Charles III is not yet crowned as King and his Kingship is not accorded him by divine right. The very role of monarchs of England was changed with the overthrow and beheading of Charles I in 1649. The English Parliament, under the leadership of Hobbes and Cromwell, created a new arrangement; one which did away with the divine Right of Kings and which instead recognised the sovereign power of the English Parliament, nominating a person or thing to be an artificial head of state as the embodiment of a Covenant between the people and the state.

The issue is that in a modern world, there is no longer a need for a fictitious person of State. What is required are modern definitions and modern democratic arrangements that will ensure that it is the people who are sovereign. Any maintaining of the old constitutional order can only serve to fraudulently keep the people in awe of something apparently above them and to keep them from making their claim to power; and it was always intended thus.

Right from the get-go, Hobbes and Cromwell's avowed aim in establishing the arrangements of Covenant Thesis as expressed in Hobbes' Leviathan, was to keep the mob at bay. The old constitutional order has been built on this fraud. Its aim at the time was to end the English Civil War and force a compact between the warring ruling elites in order to keep the peace. And it did achieve this. But at the expense of the people and their aspirations at the time.

What must happen is that sovereignly must be vested in the people and they must be the deciders of their own destiny. We no longer need any other body or person to reign over us, and any person claiming to do so no longer holds any authority. As such, the person of state and the person who inhabits that role becomes a fraud and a block to the legitimate and rightful aspirations of the people.

The problem with King Charles III is that he and those working so hard to create the illusion of his inherited power fail to recognise that the role of the fictitious person of state no longer functions in the way it once did. The breaking of the wand symbolically has set the seal on the end of old arrangements and like it or no, King Charles has no authority to be or to reign over anything.

It is no coincidence that public authority in the "United Kingdom" government is collapsing, and that at the same time the perceived authority of the Head of State that people look up to as the fictitious Person of State is being exposed for the fraud it always was. With the person of Charles becoming King, it is now clear that this is a political monarchy and that the authority embodied in the fictitious person of state at the apex of Covenant Thesis - the basis of maintaining ruling elites in power for nearly four hundred years - is finally being exposed as a broken authority and one manifestly out of step with the requirement of the times.

The crisis of the political arrangements is such that there is a sense of desperation overtaking the echelons of power. Whereas the pageantry surrounding King Charles III and his doings as the Monarch are designed to produce a sense of awe, now that he is supposed to be that fictitious person of state, symbolising the "rock" upon which "the nation" is built, and bringing a sense of stability where all around is chaos and the political world in turmoil; the truth is that Charles is an individual of untold personal wealth who is far from some benign symbol of power.

As Prince of Wales, Charles constantly interfered in matters of state, making his views known to members of the government, and he and Queen Elizabeth II were known to have made over a thousand interventions to government ministers and in changing Bills, especially concerning matters that related to their own land holdings in Scotland and elsewhere. And whereas it might be argued that Queen Elizabeth as a person did strive to embody or was depicted as embodying a detached and mainly ceremonial figure, her son has gone out of his way to be a personality and have his influence in his own right, both characteristics which are jarringly at odds with the role of the artificial Person of State expected of a constitutional monarch.

Since becoming King, King Charles III has been bent on cementing his influence and making an impact from the outset. According to the Royal Central website, '"The King is poised to visit France on an official State Visit following an invitation from President Emmanuel Macron" in the coming month. They report, "It is thought that the Foreign Office is keen for the monarch to visit France and use the 'soft-power' of monarchy to build better relations between the European neighbours." In other words, he and the state are already shaping him to be a Monarch of a new type; one that is overtly political and intervenes in matters of state.

However, this notion of a "soft-power" Monarch is no more than a political Monarchy vainly trying to find a less fictitious role whilst adapting the old order to serve the interests of the rich and powerful. The truth is that what we are witnessing is a breakdown in the public authority between the Parliament, the people and the fictitious Person of State; and a breakdown in the authority of the Person of State as such. The trust and the bond of trust that the Person of State represented has now irrevocably broken down. And a broken authority cannot be restored. This is not simply about this King or his character, although these are factors in the breakdown, but it is about what the Monarch, any Monarch, now represents.

Also, as an individual, King Charles has a distinctly unsavoury history and, with the old constitutional order coming under question, as Workers' Weekly pointed out [1], King Charles does "not have the authority which had been built up around Queen Elizabeth and the new Elizabethan Age" and he "does not convey what is necessary in preserving the old constitutional order. The time and the place are not appropriate."

Far from being detached, Charles has shown an active association with Zionism and has served as an arms lobbyist for decades, smoothing arms sales for BAE Systems in the Middle East. He has also been found to accept cash gifts and plastic bags from Arab Monarchs, purportedly in exchange for state honours. Press TV commented that "Charles is, undoubtedly, of questionable character, but what has not been examined is his relationship with the Israel lobby. The monarch has been a key patron of the World Jewish Relief Organisation for many years. The organisation shares fundraisers with Zionist settlements and is funded by key Israel lobbyist and convicted fraudster Gerald Ronson." [2]

There has also been the contradictions with his professed role as the "Defender of Faiths". In his proclamation on becoming King immediately following the death of Queen Elizabeth II, he was declared, "Defender of the Faith, to whom we do acknowledge all Faith and Obedience with humble Affection". This message was rammed home at the funeral of Queen Elizabeth which was an explicitly Christian affair and which made no mention of any other faiths or peoples, a fact which was not lost on the various indigenous peoples of the realms who are being asked to pledge allegiance to King Charles III as Head of State and Head of the Church of England.

The old constitutional order has been built on this fraud that is now King Charles III. Far from maintaining some covenant of peace between the people and the state, the fiction of this fictitious person of state is that he now presides over and legitimises a state of police powers and repressions, and of the rule of the rich, the oligopolies and international cartel parties. He presides over the breakdown in the arrangements that maintain a veil over the whole edifice.

It is interesting that in series 1, episode 7, of the television series The Crown, the writers refer to a chapter of Walter Bagehot's book "The English Constitution". The episode is set in August 1953 when Churchill, upon hearing that the Soviet Union has tested their first thermonuclear weapon, is urgently trying to organise a summit with the American President Eisenhower. At the height of the "crisis", Churchill suffered a stroke which incapacitated him, and yet he instructed his aides and government officials not to inform the Queen. The series has the Queen say that his behaviour "feels like a betrayal not just of the covenant of trust between us and the institutions that we both represent but of our own personal relationship". She then reads from her notes, "In 1867 Walter Bagehot wrote there are two elements of the Constitution: the efficient and the dignified. The monarch is the dignified and the government the efficient. These two institutions only work when they sup port each other. When they trust one another." It is precisely this trust which has now broken down and which has led to the breakdown in the authority of the fictitious person of state, not to mention the efficiency of government.

What emerges is that King Charles III, far from being an embodiment of the fictitious person of state at the heart of Covenant Thesis, is himself a block to any new arrangements coming into being. He has an active interest in colluding with the state and with the old constitutional order to keep himself and his family in power, and to keep a stranglehold on his own vast personal wealth. There is no longer any trust between the people (the subjects) and the monarch (long to reign over us) nor with the institutions of state, neither with the person of King Charles nor with the fictitious person of state that he stakes a claim to be. He and the role of Monarch is a fraud and this political monarchy as it has become, is politically and in every way bankrupt. The only way forward is to consign the old constitutional order along with the fiction that is the monarch to the dustbin of history. Sovereignty must now be vested in the people.

Notes
1. "The New King and the Old Constitutional Order", Workers' Weekly Internet Edition Year 2022 Volume 52 Number 21
http://www.rcpbml.org.uk/wwie-22/ww22-21/ww22-21.htm
2. "King Charles III and his affinity for Zionism",
https://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2022/10/09/690630/King-Charles-III-and-his-affinity-for-Zionism Also see,
https://www.timesofisrael.com/king-charles-iii-a-friend-to-uk-jewry-with-special-and-historic-ties-to-israel/

ShareThis

Link to Full Issue of Workers' Weekly

RCPB(ML) Home Page

Workers' Weekly Online Archive