@SecretPeopleTSP@EnglishHistory Open any history book with footnotes for evidence of William issuing circular letters for a convention, once he had been handed control of the government. Again, it’s important to look at this yourself, quite rightly you shouldn’t take anybody’s word if you are seeking truth.
@SecretPeopleTSP@EnglishHistory That should be everybody’s standard, but What you needed to add is that you haven’t looked into anything I’ve said after at least thirty responses. It would be more accurate to say you are ignoring the information.
@SecretPeopleTSP@EnglishHistory Explain how what you’re saying relates to and supports individual sovereignty? How does it align with natural law and inherent rights?
@EnglishHistory Authority of parliament? At common law a legitimate parliament assembled by royal writ. The convention didn’t meet under that criteria. The crown and parliament recognition act retroactively provided a legal blanket for illegal actions. A political coup d’état is more fitting.
@SecretPeopleTSP@EnglishHistory William was handed government before the declaration was even drawn up. William was exercising prerogative powers he didn’t legitimately process.
@SecretPeopleTSP@EnglishHistory Except the convention had no legal right to exist and lacked any legitimate authority to offer anything to anybody. They had to pass the crown and parliament recognition act and then had to back date it because no time machine was available.
@HStillburn@SecretPeopleTSP@LouLeeLouLa@nspec2a This originated from Pope Damasus who was the first to claim that St Peter was the first bishop of Rome, hence later Popes claiming authority as a direct line from Peter. If you read later canon law, and decretals from the 4th century onwards, this language is prominent.
@HStillburn@SecretPeopleTSP@LouLeeLouLa@nspec2a Meaning Innocent III didn’t have any legitimate feudal rights or jurisdiction in secular matters. His imaginary authority over secular matters came from the idea that he was the servant of the servants of God, claiming earthly authority over everything.
@HStillburn@SecretPeopleTSP@LouLeeLouLa@nspec2a It’s nice to chat with someone who has clearly looked into this beyond the mainstream interpretation. The Papal bull was indeed invalid but it was also ignored by Stephen Langton who refused his instructions to issue the Bull and excommunicate the barons and was later suspended.
@HStillburn@SecretPeopleTSP@LouLeeLouLa@nspec2a King John had breached the terms of his coronation oath. He was guilty of terrible crimes against his own people. At Runnymede king John was held to account and rightly so, he was out of control. Innocent III, was also guilty of terrible crimes orchestrating the crusades.
@SecretPeopleTSP@LouLeeLouLa@HStillburn@nspec2a Like I said, no coercion involved, just encouraging people to look at the information for themselves. It’s always down to the individual to accept or reject information. You’re not addressing anything, you’re deflecting.
@SecretPeopleTSP@LouLeeLouLa@HStillburn@nspec2a Do you think it is wise for people’s starting point to be 1688, while ignoring everything that came before? That’s not going to paint an accurate picture for anybody.