Original subtitles

King Charles

Charles the First

[they tend not to give you a number when you’re the first],

was born on 19 November 1600

into the House of Stuart

as the second son of King James VI of Scotland

and was King of England, Scotland, and Ireland

from 27 March 1625

until his execution on 30 January 1649.

“I swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to his majesty King Charles".

…his Majesty King Charles.

…to his majesty King Charles.

King Charles.

King Charles.

…to his Majesty King Charles.

…to his Majesty King Charles.

…to his Majesty King Charles.

…to his Majesty King Charles.

…to his Majesty King Charles.

King Charles.

…that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance

to his majesty King Charles,

his heirs and successors

according to law,

So help me God.

MPs in the Commons swearing allegiance to the new King.

So why are the UK’s most senior MPs and Parliamentary dignitaries

now swearing an oath to a King that died 373 years ago?

These people are usually such sticklers for fastidious formality and precise titular protocol.

Can they really be so incompetent or so wilfully ignorant as to continue to parade this glaring mistake

before the rest of the House and the eyes of the world?

And if so, what do we pay them for?

Everyone else seems to be getting it right.

“King Charles the Third"

"His Majesty King Charles the Third".

"Charles the Third".

"Charles the third"

"King Charles the third”

The Charles Philip Arthur George, Jimmy Saville’s pal,

who was born in 1948,

should really be formally addressed

as King Charles the Third.

That is, if he really were King.

“At Buckingham Palace, which for 62 years has seen no Royal births,

his Royal Highness the Baby is born behind these windows.

Broadcasting the news that all have waited for is live programme announcer Franklin Engelmann.”

“It has just been announced from Buckingham Palace

that Her Royal Highness the Princess Elizabeth, Duchess of Edinburgh,

was safely delivered of a Prince at 9.14pm

and that Her Royal Highness and her son are both doing well”.

A Common Law Court has already confirmed that Queen Elizabeth II

was never lawfully crowned Queen at her coronation in 1953.

And as we have conclusively proven in our previous video “The Stone of Destiny”,

the ceremony was neither conducted lawfully nor legally,

nor witnessed by God - via the Stone itself.

And crucially, Elizabeth signed her coronation oath above the written declaration

and then lied to the people about the presence of the sacred Stone.

And as a result, Charles, her son, can never become king.

So why are they swearing an oath to a dead king?

There is not a chance that the House of Commons and its MP's would allow an error like this to take place.

They know precisely what they are doing.

Is it because they know that Charles is not the king

and never can be,

given the fact that they don't have the Stone of Destiny?

And if so,

does this mean that once again,

they are being observably complicit

in crimes against We the People?

“...to his Majesty King Charles".

King Charles.

King Charles.

King Charles.

…to his majesty King Charles, his heirs and successors according to law, so help me God.”

Oh yes, I’m the Great Pretender…

…that the Prince Charles Phillip Arthur George is now become our only lawful and rightful Liege Lord, Charles the Third.