Iain Davis
As the crowning of Charlie-boy approaches, the Royal home thought it would be good to offer the British public the opportunity to swear their allegianceto King Charles III and state themselves his servant. This “tribute of individuals” has been popular amongst some. Most likely, they’re dead keen to live a life of slavery.
Obviously, Shabana Mahmood, the Labour Celebration’s national project planner, believes slavery is a “charming concept” and that involving individuals in the coronation, by offering them to opportunity to become servants, was a “lovely touch.” The UK transportation secretary, Mark Harper, believes that optional slavery represents a “great chance.” Although, he didn’t define for whom.
Harper went on to suggest that enslaving millions of individuals will offer a “great showcase for Britain all over the world.” This doesn’t appear to be essential. Provided its colonial past and current diplomacy, it promises that many people are already familiar with the way the British state rolls.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the “homage of the people” has actually not been pitched by the Establishmentas the “homage of the servants”. It’s an invitation, not a command, and everyone understands that merely trying to shackle individuals is a type of altruism.
Like Shabana and Mark, Vince, the Archbishop of Westminster, described this invitation as “exceptional” and “beautiful,” with Sky News reporting:
For the very first time in history the general public will be given an active role in the coronation, having actually been welcomed to state the oath to the King out loud.
Of course, the entire point of his oath is that he, as the president, swears his allegiance to us. But let’s not allow our codified constitution to obstruct of an excellent old, statist hallucination. We have not for more than 800 years, so why start now?
That being said, it is not without good reason that an apparent majority of people have actually decided that they do not wantto pay “homage” to an inept toff. This appears reasonable, because it avoids making the bat-shit crazy choice to pledge your “obligation of fidelity and obedience” to some bloke using a load of moody gold.
For those who fancy the concept of oppressing themselves to an unaware aristocrat, prior to you guffaw in scornful rejection of any tip that you are, in truth, choosing to be a servant, it is maybe worth noting what an oath of obligation actually implies:
[…] the responsibility of fidelity and obedience which the individual owes to the government under which he lives, or to his sovereign in return for the defense he receives
Your “allegiance” suggests you pledge your “obedience” in return for defense. This is commonly known as a “protection racket.”
It get’s even worse:
The resident or subject owes an outright and long-term loyalty to his federal government or sovereign, or at least till, by some open and unique act, he renounces it and ends up being a person or topic of another government or another sovereign.
You may have observed your rather restricted choices if you are ever dumb sufficient to swear an oath of obligation to the parasite class. You can’t truly get out of it unless you consequently swear your “absolute and long-term” “fidelity and obedience” to the next parasitic sleazebag that elbows their method to your life.
Still, each to their own. Who am I to put anybody off choosing to be a slave?
Nevertheless, before you do, perhaps spare a minute to consider your options. There are much better servant masters laying about, need to you desire one.
Perhaps you could select to be Elon Musk’s servantinstead? As these things go, selecting Charles as your personal oppressor might be a bit iffy.
[then] Prince Charles and Uncle Dickie
Mountbatten Charles was mentored by his dad’s uncle, Lord Louis Mountbatten (Prince Louis of Battenberg), who he affectionately called“Uncle Dickie.” A frequent visitor to his “honorary grandpapa’s” Broadlands estate, the young Charles often holidayed with the Mountbattens.
As an adult, Charles was encouraged by “Uncle Dickie” to utilize Broadlands for any sexual rendezvous that Charles would rather keep peaceful. The US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) described Mountbattenas a paedophile “with a perversion for young boys.”
King Charles’ was extremely near to Jimmy Savile. The necrophiliac paedophile and kid pimp was a confidant and advisorto the Royal home, and Charles in specific, for more than thirty years.
Kid rapist Savile and King Charles– an interesting power dynamic.
When the Bishop and well-known paedophile, Peter Ball, very first accepted a caution– previous to his subsequent conviction in 2015– Charles felt that a “monstrous incorrect” had been caused upon the pederast. Understanding the nature of the claims, and Ball’s admission of guilt, Charles acquired a property for Ball and his twin sibling.
King Charles subsequently rejected all understanding of Ball’s vile crimes in the letter he submittedto the Independent Query into Kid Sexual Assault. The description he provided was idiotic:
I was definitely not aware at the time of the significance or impact of the care that Peter Ball has actually accepted, or undoubtedly sure if I was even outlined it. Whilst I note that Peter Ball mentioned the word in a letter to me in October 2009, I was not mindful up until just recently that a caution in reality carries an acceptance of guilt.
This remains in keeping with the story we are offered about Charles which suggests he is a gullible pillock. Probably, this naive stupidity encompasses the massive advisory teamthat surrounds Charles and the Royals.
It seems, nobody recommended Charles to stop hanging around with nonces. Although, undoubtedly, in his household, it is hard to prevent them.
Not a single one of his large selection of advisors took the time to explain to Charles what the legal implications of a caution were. Moreover, all of them were entirely unaware that their future, arrested King was “inadvertently” maintaining a series of close friendships and “special” relationships with kid rapists.
In spite of all of this, some individuals actually like waving their little flags and stay excited to declare their oath of obedience to this guy. Maybe since they have no concept what it means or perhaps because they are as thick as he is.
It is good to know that ending up being Charles’ slave is not a direct command. Many individuals would choose to entirely neglect the World Economic Online Forum(WEF) spokesperson and hypocrite, King Charles III.
We certainly wouldn’t wish to ruin his day by telling him to shove his “invitation” where the sun does not shine.
You can find out more of Iain’s work at his blog IainDavis.com (Formerly InThisTogether) or on UK Column or follow him on Twitter or register for his SubStack. His new book Pseudopandemic, is now available, in both in kindle and paperback, from Amazon and other sellers. Or you can claim a totally free copy by registering for his newsletter.
SUPPORT OFFGUARDIAN
For direct-transfer bank details click here.