Rexamining Individualism
in a world of Collectivism

When the Queen appears in public displaying a crown upon her head, what is being displayed? Is it a human person who is wearing a crown, or is it a human person who is representing an institution by wearing a crown? If it is the latter, then what is the institution of the Crown?

In law, the institution of the British Crown is known as a 'corporation sole'. It is a legal entity occupied by a 'sole' person: but the person and the corporation are not one and the same. One is a human person and the other is an artificial entity created by law which the human person manages. This is a different system of management for property than the procedure which usually follows the demise of the average human person. Because under the Crown corporation sole, when a monarch dies, the Crown corporation sole is not extinguished, it is passed on to the management of the next monarch. This arrangement protects the power of sovereignty which resides in the institution of the Crown, and not in the human person of the monarch. Today continuity is provided for, but this was not always true when monarchs weilded the power of absolute dictators. Under the current arrangement, many institutions that have been incorporated under a 'Royal' or Crown charter do not come to a halt having lost their authority to exist in law.

Today the Queen is often viewed as a figurehead, and little attention is paid to the corporation sole that she represents, and which is mainly managed by other people. The Crown not only owns vast amounts of property, it also performs a number of functions in law. The people who are actually managing the operation of the Crown corporation sole are primarily Privy Councilors who are sworn to secrecy while operating outside of Parliamentary control, even though many, but not all Privy Councilors, are also members of Parliament.

The institutions of the Crown and Parliament are not one and the same, even though the Crown is said to be 'in' Parliament. The reality is that the Crown corporation sole still exists outside of, and remains superior to Parliament. But by a careful play with words it would appear that it is under the control of Parliament. In reality it is under the control of people who may also be members of Parliament, but who are sworn to secrecy and wear the hats of Privy Councilors. They are not operating according to Parliamentary rules, but according to their own modus operandi, making Parliament subject to the Crown. It matters not that many try to assert that the Crown is subject to Parliament, when the reality of its legal structure, function, and its ability to create Orders in Council, prove otherwise. This is especially true because not all Privy Councilors are elected Members of Parliament, in that they operate as a Council that is sworn to their own rules of secrecy in a forum that is outside of Parliament, and beyond the scrutiny of the press.

This explanation is not intended to be construed as the front piece for an over-arching conspiratorial explanation of history with worldwide and historical connections. It is more in keeping with the U.S. Justice Department interpretation of conspiracy, wherein that government entity regularly charges individuals who are engaging in concert with like-minded individuals to perform an 'instant act' that is contrary to a specific law. The violations that are complained of here, are violations of organic (natural) laws of human equality bestowed by 'Nature's God', not privileges bestowed by another human being. Every human being, by virtue of having been born, inherits their own freeborn rights. These are not health rights, economic rights or property rights, but rights claimed to assert an equal say regarding any collectivist law instituted by human beings that is enacted to govern health, economics, property, or anything else that may infringe upon the freeborn rights of any one individual. It is for this reason that the Crown corporation sole cannot be reformed as it presently exists, because it is built upon a foundation that immediately puts it upon a collision course with individual freeborn rights. That is due to both its origin and its present structure. The Crown corporation sole emerged as a means of dictatorial economic control, and it is in keeping with other flawed systems of dictatorship, be they theocratic or atheistic. It makes no difference that the Crown corporation sole is viewed as a benign dictatorship, for the preservation of individual freeborn rights it must be replaced by the broad based sovereignty of The People.

At the moment the British Crown is perceived by its onlookers as something akin to a stage play, with the audience gazing upon royalty as though they were 'players' performing on a stage. Segregation prevents the audience from comingling with the 'players', because, to borrow a phrase, "each has a part to play". In this pageantry, the audience is composed of ticket holders, and each person must abide by the terms of admission. While there may be an audience identification with the royal performers, they have not been engaged by, and neither are they subject to, the ticket holders, notwithstanding the fact that in fairly recent times an attempt was made to market a lesser member of this troupe as "The Peoples' Princess".

Although the structure of a corporation sole differs from that of a member built public corporation, it also differs from that of a shareholding company, but it does not mean that the corporation sole is managed by a single person. However, there is a distinct difference between a corporation sole and a company that is owned by shareholders who can demand the resignation of its directors, because a corporation sole creates a 'me' and 'them' relationship. Perhaps the closest that this latter arrangement comes to the present British system is that of Parliament and its elected Members. However, Parliament is not the primary corporation, it is more of a subsidiary of the parent corporation sole, because in the earliest days it was created by the corporation sole. No matter what pressure may be brought upon the parent by the subsidiary, it is still a subsidiary and not the parent. Therefore it is necessary to change the charter of the corporation sole and transform it into a publicly owned corporation wherein all of The People become its 'shareholders'; then such an entity would begin to mirror the fundamental premise of the U.S. Constitution.

If the monarch became a true figurehead, and that is what many people think that the monarch is now, it would transform the relationship between monarch and 'subjects'. Because at that point in time the monarch would be placed on a par with Mickey Mouse who successfully represents Disneyland as a loveable ambassador. Then the monarch would indeed perform the role that many people believe that the present monarch is actually performing today. The monarch would continue to wave and smile at the tourists, but the monarch would only have an equal right along with everyone else to amend the Crown corporation charter, which would then become a written constitution governing the legal structure of the nation. If it came to that, the job of monarch could be promoted on television as the 'M Factor', and Simon Cowell and the telecoms would probably be delighted to assist in the selection process, along with the mandatory (it seems), screaming pre-teens and early teens who accompany such events. If we again think back to the days of the so-called 'Peoples' Princess' we will realize that we were almost at that point once before, but without any guarantees of freeborn rights.

As a result of over-simplified explanations about the nature of the current Crown corporation sole, the average person can easily confuse the person of the Queen, with the ' artificial person' of the Crown, and vice-versa. It is a dangerous confusion, and it is the reason why many aspects of the British system of government do not seem to make sense. In law, a corporation can also be defined as a 'person' and it has many of the same rights as a human person. It is for this reason that a corporation cannot be represented in law pro se, because it is not a human person and it cannot speak for itself. Therefore it must be represented by the equivalent of an Ad Litem, that is, a qualified legal representative who is recognized by a Court and can represent the best interests of the corporation. Since there is no higher legal authority than the Crown, it cannot be sued, unless it gives permission to be sued.

In the United States 'The People' hold sovereignty of their nation through its written Constitution, but the sovereign structure of the USA has little, if anything in common with the sovereign structure of the United Kingdom. Religious entities such as the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of England (for example), have more in common from a legal perspective with the structure of the present Crown corporation sole, than the governmental structure of the United States of America. However, as a caveat, it must be noted that while there are similarities between the legal systems employed within the UK, there is no uniformity between its two primary nations of England and Scotland, and when we factor in the USA, additional problems in comprehension also arise due to the fact that there is not a total uniformity between the legal systems employed within the various states. Within the scope of this article it should be noted that a corporation sole in the United Kingdom is created by statute, it is not something that an individual can merely create on their own. Problems in comprehension also arise when the words 'corporation' and 'company' are used interchangeably within the USA, but not in the UK, because in the UK a corporation can have a different meaning when it is applied to a governmental body where the counterpart of a corporation sole is a corporation aggregate. This digression is made necessary due to the fact that in some U.S. States provision has been made for the incorporation of a corporation sole by individuals, but in some instances that structure of incorporation has been deliberately abused as a means of attempting to avoid payment of taxes. As a result, U.S. and State governments have applied the full force of law against such violators in order to prevent evasion by the frivolous application of the corporation sole in those situations. This article does not address the U.S. application, it is focussing upon the fact that a Crown corporation sole exists in the United Kingdom which has in turn created subsidiary corporations. The question of how the Crown corporation sole came into existence is something that needs to be addressed, but it is outside the scope of this present article, but it will be addressed in another article linked to this page.

In the United Kingdom, the monarch balances management of the temporal powers of the State, with the spiritual powers of the Church of England. All of that is symbolized during the theatre of the coronation ceremony by a sceptre symbolising temporal power over 'subjects', which is held in the right hand of the monarch (see picture above). The orb dominated by the Christian cross also symbolizes a throwback to the days of colonial empire and white man's 'burden', and that is held in the left hand of the monarch. These temporal and spiritual powers are capped by a symobolic crown that is worn upon the head of the monarch, and this illustrates the supreme power of its sovereignty reigning over everyone and everything.

Illustrated above (left) is the crown that was used in the last coronation. While it is called 'St. Edward's Crown', it has nothing to do with that individual. It was created for the coronation of King Charles II in 1661. In 1649 the monarchy was overthrown and his father (King Charles I) was executed. England became a republic that same year, and the previous symbolic crown was melted down.

King Edward's Crown was made with four pounds and twelve ounces of solid gold making it extremely heavy, but it was not used for some time until King Edward VII decided to use it. He was King and Emperor from January 22 1901, until his death on May 6 1910. Until that time it had just been carried in procession. Its fake stones were removed and replaced with hired originals for each occasion. But prior to Edward VII, his predecessor Queen Victoria did not use it at all, and she left it in the Tower of London. Because of its weight and because Edward VII was ill, he did not use it either.

It was not until the coronation of King George V in 1911 when a London jeweler installed 444 precious and semi-precious stones in it, that it was finally used in a coronation ceremony again. It was last used during the actual coronation ceremony of Queen Elizabeth II in 1953.

The lighter Imperial Crown of State which is also illustrated above (right), was originally made for Queen Victoria in 1838, and it contains a number of gems, which according to various traditions, have historical connections. However, these crowns and other artifacts associated with the coronation ceremony and post-coronation pictures (such as the one above), illustrate that there is more mythology attached to the monarchy than there is fact. When the present Queen was crowned she was sitting in an uncomfortable contraption known as King Edward's Chair (right). Under its seat is a special compartment in which until recent times, resided a block of stone having various names attached to it. But according to mythology it is supposed to relate back to the time of a vision that was seen by Jacob, as recounted in the Biblical Book of Genesis. What is certain is that any number of these kings and queens of yore, have written reams of biographical scripture that would delight the heart of many a sadist and mass murderer.

Many historians have documented the rise of the secret state, and some journalists have spent their professional lifetime attempting to unmask it. There are a few politicians who wish to abolish the monarchy and create another republic, but they are constantly reminded of what happened the last time this was tried: Oliver Cromwell turned the English Republic into a dictatorship. When revolutions take place there can be no guarantee that they will finally arrive at the destination of freedom, and even the process of revolution may result in a bloodbath in the interim. Therefore it is not a wise suggestion to advocate such a course of action in the United Kingdom. But, if the monarchy was legally transformed into the role that many people assume that it already plays, then there would be no fatal shock to the system of the body politic, instead it would receive a transfusion that would guarantee it a new lease on life while bringing about true liberty of The People.

It was to this same cause of liberty that John Lilburne (c.1614-1657) gave his life while attempting to institute a written constitution in England. He sought to end the theft of individual organic rights. Today we would do well to reexamine his quest and morph the institution of the Crown into a constitutional monarchy, which of course some would have us believe already exists. However, the facts speak for themselves and clearly that perception is but the lie of propaganda. We should note that attempts to transform the United Kingdom into a republic in name, could end in another dictatorship to join the legacy of Oliver Cromwell. Therefore we should begin to look at the job positions of king and queen (and all of the lesser titles), as the keys to transforming the monarchy into a brand image for a new constitutional form of government representing all of The People. Not only that, but the monarchy would remain a national treasure that Walt Disney enterprises could not match, because that company is but a mere commercial corporation. The new Crown corporation would become the instant owner of theme parks at Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle and the like, and the owner of the Crown corporation would be The People. The commercial possibilities are spectacular, the television ratings for the 'M Factor' would be fantastic, and the protection of freeborn rights would seem like the dawning of utopia.

November 10, 2010