King Charles III Proclamation in Violation of UN Resolution: Royal Legacy to Protestants in Discrimination of Catholics, Jews or Muslims
by Fabio Giuseppe Carlo Carisio
Charles III was formally proclaimed king on Saturday morning in the apartments of St James, in the Buckingham Palace complex, by the Accession Council, an institution called to certify the succession between one monarch and another in the United Kingdom, and which meets only on this occasion.
On the death of Queen Elizabeth II and the accession to the throne of her heir, the whole world was split on the media and on social networks among the devotees of the British Crown, the nostalgic of the monarchical charm, the loyal to the institutions regardless, the mindful of atrocities of British colonialism, the protesters of the monarchy, and finally those, like us at Gospa News, who, with inquiries in hand, have succinctly highlighted the continuity between the New World Order protected by the Queen and the Great Reset wanted by the new king since when he was crown prince.
But there is a detail on the proclamation of Charles III that seems to have escaped the most attentive observers of contemporary history so far.
His appointment took place in clear violation of Article 2 of the Declaration on the elimination of all forms of intolerance and discrimination based on religion or belief, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations with resolution 36/55 of 25 November 1981.
In the UK, the Accession Council is a ceremonial body that meets at St James’s Palace in London upon the death of a monarch to make the formal proclamation of the successor’s accession to the throne. Under the terms of the ancient law called Act of Settlement 1701, a new monarch happens automatically (death of the Crown). The proclamation merely confirms the identity of the new monarch by name and formally announces the kingdom name of the new monarch.
It should be remembered that the United Kingdom is a parliamentary constitutional monarchy, made up of four so-called ‘constituent nations’: England, Scotland and Wales, which together form Great Britain, and Northern Ireland. It also controls 14 overseas territories.
The king and his immediate family perform various official, ceremonial, diplomatic and representative duties. Since the monarchy is constitutional, the sovereign is limited by the parliament and the constitution, he has impartial functions such as conferring honors and appointing the prime minister.
But the monarch is traditionally the commander-in-chief of the British Armed Forces which own Europe’s most powerful Air Force and Navy and are supplied by one of the world’s three largest arms industries: Bae Systems.
Although formal executive authority over the UK government is still the King, through the royal prerogative of the monarch, these powers can be used under the laws enacted in Parliament and, in practice, within the limits of conventions and precedents.
Charles, Prince of Wales, became king at 73, being the eldest son of Queen Elizabeth II and Philip of Edinburgh. He belongs to the Windsor family, which kept this name by royal decree, even after his mother’s marriage. Again by royal decree, he has no surname, as he is Royal Highness and heir in direct line.
He has held the title of Prince of Wales since 1958, and his full title is his Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, except in Scotland where he is said to be His Royal Highness Prince Charles, Duke of Rothesay. The title of Duke of Cornwall is often used by the prince in relations with Cornwall. He holds the military rank of Vice Admiral of the British Royal Navy.
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST CATHOLICS IN VIOLATION OF THE UN RESOLUTION
The proclamation of King Charles III through the Accession Council is instead a direct consequence of the Act of Settlement: a law of the English Parliament passed in 1701 to establish the succession to the English and Irish crowns only on Protestants. This had the effect of deposing the descendants of Charles I (apart from his Protestant niece, Princess (later Queen) Anna) as the next Protestant in line to the throne was the Electress Sophia of Hanover, niece of James VI and I. After her, the crowns would come down only to her non-Catholic heirs.
In an era in which anyone tears their clothes if any human being is discriminated against for their faith in the workplace or in politics, one of the oldest, most noble and progressive institutions in the world, the British Crown, can only be sold. to the heirs to the Protestant Anglican throne and not to any heirs of a Christian Catholic confession and, implicitly, also those of Jewish, Islamic religion etc.
This means that if Charles III, moreover known more for his spicy scandals than for his Christian faith, had not been of Protestant confession, he could not have been proclaimed king.
The problem arises today for the first time in the history of the United Kingdom because in 1952, when Elizabeth II was appointed Queen of Great Britain with the same rite, resolution 36/55 of 25 November 1981 against religious discrimination.
Here’s what Article 2 says:
1. No one shall be subject to discrimination by any State, institution, group of persons, or person on the grounds of religion or belief.
2. For the purposes of the present Declaration, the expression “intolerance and discrimination based on religion or belief” means any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on religion or belief and having as its purpose or as its effect nullification or impairment of the recognition, enjoyment or exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms on an equal basis.
THE RELIGIOSITY OF QUEEN ELIZABETH
Despite this, even the Holy See has already expressed its paeans to both the deceased queen and the heir to the throne through two articles published by Vatican News that underline the improvements in relations between Protestants and Catholics.
In the two reportages it seems to be ignored that just under the reign of Elizabeth II at Buckingham Palace the progressive scientism of Masonic imprint took the predominance also in government institutions that legitimized, up to the inevitable international scandal, the health activities of the Tavistock Center of London in the transgender chemical manipulation of autistic children.
«Her reign has seen so many changes in history. When I was young, we Catholics were more or less forbidden to pray with Anglicans. This has completely changed, and this has been reflected in the life of the Queen, who made a formal visit to Westminster Cathedral and prayed with us. Just like we would now pray with other Christians. I think it is a widely understood lesson…» declared Cardinal Vincent Nichols, Archbishop of Westminster for ten years, one of the largest Archdioceses of the Catholic Church in the United Kingdom.
«Cardinal Basil Hume was the first cardinal of the Diocese of Westminster to receive a letter from Buckingham Palace recognizing his ecclesiastical title as Archbishop of Westminster. Furthermore, in the last twenty years, for the first time in the civil law of this country we have the recognition of the role of the Catholic bishop in the administration of the affairs of his diocese. So, both at the common and the structural level of the institutions, Elizabeth II experienced and guided significant changes» he added in an interview with Vatican News that she gave great space to the religiosity of the deceased monarch.
«You are known for a very strong and very personal faith. He went to church every Sunday and also at other times of the year, in the chapels of royal palaces throughout Great Britain» recalls Reverend Jules Cave Bergquist, chaplain of Naples, Bari, Sorrento and Capri and vicar for Italy of the Anglican Bishop for Europe.
The Protestant religious adds: «For her, being a monarch meant being a Difensor fidei. We all know that Difensor fidei was a title given to Henry VIII by the Pope (Pope Leo X ed) for writing a book on the seven sacraments. It is a title inherited from the Queen and then also from the kings. Many people ask me: “But is the Queen the head of your Church, of the Church of England, of the Anglican Church?” The head of our Church is Christ, as for the Catholic Church. The Pope for you is the Vicar of Christ, for us the Queen, as well as her successors, are supreme governors of the Church of England, it means that the role includes making sure that her Church has bishops to be governed, it means then invite the bishops to assume responsibilities for the flock. The Queen has also been able to update this mission and pass it on to her descendants. It was very important for her, not only her personal faith, but also to look at faith as something to be handed down to her people, to her heirs of her ».
THE KING “DEFENSOR FIDEI” EXCOMMUNICATED BY THE POPE
The sly Anglican chaplain Jules Cave Bergquist, however, tells only the fragment of a much more complex story in which the ancient Act of Settlement of 1701 is rooted.
As the Encyclopedia Treccani explains, the title Defensor Fidei was: “conferred by Pope Leo X on Henry VIII of England (1521), in recognition of the treatise Assertio septem sacramentorum against Martin Luther (written with the help of some councilors including Thomas More). When, following the rupture of relations between Henry VIII and the papacy (1538), Paul III deprived the king of the title, the English Parliament re-attributed it to him in the term Defender of the faith, which has since remained the prerogative of the crown “.
On Treccani itself we read a brief summary of the life of the King of England, who became known for his habit of killing wives, from which other disturbing facts emerge for those who have little memory of the history of religions.
«Henry VIII called the parliament and, having got rid of Wolsey, took the initiative in the attack against the clergy and the pope: he replaced the ecclesiastical officials with other seculars and, after attacking (1530) the ecclesiastical revenues, the plurality of benefits and the non-residence of the clergy, extended to all the clergy the accusation already addressed to Wolsey of having violated the Statute of Praemunire (1353), which forbade English citizens to submit to papal sovereignty, and forced him to recognize in him the head of the English Church (1531); in 1533 the Act of Appeals consequently prohibited any appeal to Rome. In the meantime Thomas Cromwell had succeeded Wolsey as secretary to the king (1534) while Thomas Cranmer, appointed archbishop of Canterbury by Henry VIII, undertook the building of the Anglican Church» reports the Encyclopedia Treccani.
It was he who proclaimed (23 April 1533) the annulment of the King’s first marriage and crowned (1 June) Anna Bolena: on 7 September Elizabeth was born.
«The act of succession (1534), which placed the crown on Elizabeth’s head, and the act of supremacy, of the same year, according to which it was treason to deny the ecclesiastical supremacy of Henry VII., Completed the separation of the English Church from Rome and its submission to the monarchy. Meanwhile, in July 1533 Clemente had excommunicated Henry, who, supported by the parliament and the nation, reacted by executing (1535) among others Thomas More and Bishop J. Fisher and by starting the suppression of the monasteries» Treccani still remembers.
The Act of Supremacy of 1558 then confirmed the independence of the Church of England from Roman Catholicism under the English monarch. One of the main factors causing the political crisis known as the Glorious Revolution of 1688 were the perceived assaults on the Church of England by King James II, a Roman Catholic. James was deposed in favor of her Protestant eldest daughter Maria II and her husband William III.
The need for the Settlement Act was dictated by the failure of William and Mary, as well as that of Mary’s Protestant sister – the future Queen Anne – to produce surviving children, and the perceived threat posed by the claims to the throne of remaining members. Roman Catholics of the House of the Stuarts.
The law contained eight additional provisions that would only come into effect upon the death of William and Anne. Among these it is written that the monarch “will unite in communion with the Church of England”. This was intended to ensure the exclusion of a Roman Catholic monarch.
THE MASON KING OF PROTESTANTS, LOVER OF MEN
From Anglicanism to Freemasonry the passage is shorter than you think.
«After Elizabeth I’s death, the crown should have passed, according to Henry VIII’s will, to Lady Anna Stanley, but James was, in fact, the only suitor powerful enough to defend her claim. Indeed, as early as 1601, the most influential politicians of the English court had been in contact with James to prepare for his rise. In 1601 he was initiated into Freemasonry in the lodge of Scone and Perthe by John Mylne and in 1603, a few hours after Elizabeth’s death, a council of succession proclaimed James King of England and Ireland, and he was crowned on July 25 in the Abbey of Westminster. However, Scotland and England did not become a single kingdom, which will happen with the Act of Union of 1707».
It was precisely in the sovereign chosen by the Freemasons that the first signs of a bioethical progressivism began to appear, not to call them incunabula of LGBT propaganda with lots of blasphemous allusions …
“One of the most talked about aspects of Giacomo’s life was his sexuality. An epigram of the time read Rex fuit Elisabeth, nunc est queen Jacobus (Elizabeth was king: she is now Queen James)» writes Wikipedia.
It is out of the question that the king, in choosing his favorites, favored young and handsome gentlemen, even if from a not particularly important family: the careers of Robert Carr, Earl of Somerset, and George Villiers are one example. When Giacomo reported to the Privy Council in 1617 about favoritism to the latter (appointed gentleman of the bedroom in 1615, knight and viscount in 1616, and then appointing him count the following year), he candidly declared:
I, James, am neither a god nor an angel, but a man like any other. Therefore I act like a man and confess to loving those dear to me more than other men. You may be sure that I love the Earl of Buckingham more than anyone else, and more than you who are here assembled. I wish to speak in my own behalf and not to have it thought to be a defect, for Jesus Christ did the same, and therefore I cannot be blamed. Christ had John, and I have George.
THE RULES OF THE LONDON LODGE WRITTEN BY THE PROTESTANT REVEREND
As we highlighted in a previous short story on Freemasonry, its official constitution in 1717 proved functional to the struggle for the throne between the supporters of the Protestant King George I of Hanover and the Jacobites who wanted the Crown for the Catholic Giacomo Francesco Eduardo Stuart.
«To confer authority and greater power to the Protestants was thought by George Payne who on June 24, 1717, the anniversary of St. John the Baptist took off in the year that commemorates the biblical Flood (17th day of the month), gathered the Freemasons of the four London lodges in the Goose and Gridiron Ale-house near the churchyard of St. Paul’s Cathedral. A few years later he entrusted the Anglican Reverend James Anderson with the task of drafting a more complete regulation of the Grand Lodge, entitled Constitutions of Freemasons» we recalled in the previous report.
Since then it has been Freemasonry that has taken care of waging war on the Catholic Church, as highlighted in the investigation into the Expedition of the Thousand financed by the British confreres against the Papal State, and then by the encyclical of Pope Leo XIII Humanus Genus which excommunicated Freemasonry as a kingdom of Satan.
We have clearly highlighted the intrigue of these Masonic connections in the Freemasonry and Satanism investigation in the history of Albert Pike, considered the “pope” of the American Brothers as Grand Master of the Mother Lodge of Charleston, in reference to the role of the International Revolutionary Committee of London.
This body acted under the direction of another high-ranking Freemason, the British Secretary of State, Henry John Temple, third Viscount of Palmerston (1784-1865), who linked his name to the British imperial politics of the time, from the War of the opium to the dispute over sulfur with the Bourbons which gave rise to the enmity that justified the English financing of the Expedition of the Thousand and the Unification of Italy, planned by the Mazzinian movements Giovine Italia and Giovine Europa.
On the other hand, in the clash for the throne of Great Britain at the beginning of the eighteenth century, Protestants & Freemasons had won also thanks to the cogent imposition of that Act Of Settlement of 1701 which still today allowed Charles III to be proclaimed King of the Kingdom. United as openly Anglican but would not have allowed it if Catholic, Jewish or Muslim, the latter eventuality, not even considered in the distant eighteenth century but of undoubted relevance in the current British multi-ethnic society …
VIOLATIONS AGAINST THE UN RESOLUTION ON RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION
This is a blatant violation of the 1981 UN resolution since in articles 3 and 4 all religious discrimination is strongly condemned …
Discrimination between human beings on grounds of religion or belief constitutes an affront to human dignity and a disregard for the principles of the United Nations Charter, and must be condemned as a violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Rights. human rights and detailed in the International Covenants relating to human rights, it is also condemned as an obstacle to friendly and peaceful relations between nations.
1. All States shall take effective measures to prevent and eliminate discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief in the recognition, exercise and enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms in all fields of civil, economic, political, social and cultural life.
2. All States shall make all efforts to enact or rescind legislation where necessary to prohibit any such discrimination, and to take all appropriate measures to combat intolerance on the grounds of religion or belief in this matter.
Let us now wait to see what the UN will do against this anachronistic laws that will allow King Charles III to appoint the next premier of the United Kingdom thus affecting one of the most powerful nations kneeling to the New World Order.
We fear that nothing will happen since the investigation by Secretary General Antonio Guterres to find confirmation of the suspicions on the attack of his predecessor Dag Hammarskjold, was stopped in June 2020 by the British Intelligence which refused to share with the United Nations his archival documents on the mysterious 18 September 1961 plane crash in southern Africa, which occurred while on his way to Congo to discuss the controversial issue of mineral rights.
Could everything have been covered up just because the late Hammarskjold was a Lutheran and not an Anglican?
Certainly the story was reported by very few mainstream media and it seems to have been ignored in the following months even by the “devout Christian” Elizabeth II, perhaps too involved in the propaganda of Big Pharma vaccines, controlled by the same shareholders, mostly Zionists, of the Weapons Lobby that through the New World Order, in the United Kingdom as in the whole Anglo-Saxon world, represent the true Sovereign. Not even too hidden now.