House of Windsor Downfalls Demand Scottish Succession

Egregious wrongs have continually been presented on the people of Scotland whenever a non-Scottish King has been in England. From the times of the Magna Carta 1215 to The Declaration of Arbroath after the Act of Union 1707 (post House of Stuart) and currently by the House of Windsor.

Although The Declaration of Arbroath was not a declaration to a king but rather to Pope John in 1320 A.D. it declared grievances of Scotland about England.

Scotland, continually wanting peace and not war, a paramount desiring to be a civilized country of people had Abbot Bernard de Linton of Arbroath Abbey draft a letter stating these facts.

"It is in truth not glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom -- for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself." (*1)

Has the current monarchy 'Windsor' done this?

Continuing with the notion of peace and civilization the Scots once again, acting in good faith, signed the "Act of Union" (1707) (*2). The order of succession, the heir form the loins of James I and James VI would continue. Again, peace would last and civilization would exist in both countries forever.

But has it lasted? Does the present monarchy 'Windsor' satisfy this requirement?

The preservation of the Church of England is continually presented in a just as if more sacred relationship than the heir of the monarchy and the continuance of the monarchy. From the Magna Carta which mentions in its first section the preservation of the Church and later the preservation of the monarchy all documents declare with force the necessity of the Church of England.

But how strong is it? Does the present monarchy 'Windsor' hold sacred this trust?

Is the trust of a monarchy sacred to the Scots and to the English? Is the 'Windsor' line of trust of monarchy sacred with England? Does the Estate of Parliament guarantee the noble continuation of a monarchy?

But first let us look to Scotland.

"In their Kingdom their have reigned one hundred and thirteen kings of their own royal stock, the line unbroken a single foreigner." (*1)

This thus showing indeed a steady hand of kingship and an obvious love from the people of Scotland for their king. An intolerable king would welcome invasion. A unifying King brings love, commerce and peace. No nation would attack a strong people. No nation would be able to overthrow a loving country to their King.

Yet, in a short space of time, albeit not direct, England has been in three world wars during its time since the House of Stuart, WW I, WW II, and Wars until 1763 (*3) which the English aggressively conducted to locate the assets of the House of Stuart around the world. Two of these during the time of the Windsor's.

In 1936, Prince Edward, Duke of Windsor, the disposed Edward VIII talked with England's future enemy, Adolf Hitler (4). He sided with the future enemy causes but happily was not in power to carry out those talks. All this in an effort to regain the British throne.

Was the Declaration of Arbroath perhaps a prophecy of the future and current monarchies in England when it was stated: "...when our kingdom had no head and our people harboured no malice or treachery and were then unused to wars or invasions, come in the guise of a friend and ally to harass them as an enemy." (*1) The meeting in 1937 could not have been uninvited by the Windsor's. Sending a unenthroned relative to talk about fascism would be tantamount to the throned Windsor's talking directly with Hitler. This could have been the green light for Hitler's aggressions. The green light for Saddam Hussein's attack on his neighbor by a few mistaken words from President H. W. Bush (senior). Besides the House of Windsor does have German roots. WW I was a fight between close cousins. (*5)

Inviting enemies was not a custom upheld by Scottish Kings.

Has the present Windsor monarchy lasted?

The present monarchy of England has only been in power since after Queen Victoria died in 1901. This is not a long time record. But it still is long enough to test to see if love of country is showing.

When a monarchy Queen Elizabeth II asks for an upgrade of 32 million pounds on Buckingham Palace and others and offers no money of her own to suppress the need is this love for country? (*6) When requested to have more palace visitors so the cost can partially be absorbed by visitor and the request is denied. Is this love for country?

When after fighting at the Battle of Culloden (*7) thinking you and your generals report stating you have been defeated you quickly race to France so your Generals and countrymen do not have to be defeated and have more loss of life. You also know that if successful at Culloden your Generals had said your next battle would have been in London. Escaping to preserve your countrymen and your country. Is this love of country as Bonnie Prince Charles, House of Stuart showed. Or is this King David not attacking Jerusalem again.

Is spending your own money to buy cannon, ball and muskets for protection in the countryside for Lexington against the "savage frontier" love of country. This was done so Scotland's economy could grow with good paying jobs and the new American colonies could defend themselves if attacked. Instead Bonnie Prince Charles own country came to tear down his efforts of love and affection for his old and new country.

Seeing this love, both at Culloden and hearing about this at Lexington-Concord, Massachusetts the soldiers from Culloden assembled at Valley Forge so to defeat their Southern King who was showing no love toward God and Country.

It seems as though the love of country and countrymen have shown through the ages for the Scotsmen and the House of Stuart.

Likewise it also seems that the love of profit and war but unless taxes are collected is the goal of all non-House of Stuart monarchies save the House of Hanover. Is this recorded from "The Declaration of Arbroath" as well.

"Then rouse the Christian princes who for false reasons pretend that they cannot go to help of the Holy Land because of wars they have on hand with their neighbours. The real reason that prevents them is that in making war on their smaller neighbors they find quicker profit and weaker resistance. But how cheerfully our Lord the King and we too would go there if the King of the English would leave us in peace." (*1)

Can the Estate of Parliament guarantee and support documented and contracted lines of succession even so ancient as the Magna Carta, or as recent as the Act of Union 1707 which guaranteed the line of succession from James I, VI loins which would be the House of Stuart. In short notice they did not.

Can the non-House of Stuart years be entrusted with the same loyalty as mentioned in "The Declaration of Arbroath".

"But from these countless evils we have been set free, by the help of Him who though He afflicts yet heals and restores, by our most tireless Prince, King and Lord, the Lord Robert. He, that his people and his heritage might be delivered out of the hands of our enemies, met toil and fatigue, hunger and peril, like another Macabaeus or Joshua and bore them cheerfully. Him, too, divine providence, his right of succession according to our laws and customs which we shall maintain to the death, and the due consent and assent of us all have made our Prince and King." (*1)

Can yet any of the Kings or Queens save the House of Stuart and the House of Hanover claim anything close to this type of loyalty.

"...for, as long as but a hundred of us remain alive, never will we on any conditions be brought under English rule. It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting but for freedom -- for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself." (*1)

I say no monarchy outside of the House of David, the House of Stuart and the House of Hanover have been able to have virtually all citizens show their love to the monarchy in England like it also is in Scotland.

And then can the current monarchy of 'Windsor' last if even above all the rest, the future line of Windsor seeks advice not from the Church of England concerning his marriage but rather the Church in Rome.

Yes, can the Estate of Parliament be trusted if 'The Old Pretender' needed an education in France and not in the least a Papist but was only loyal to God, Church of England and Country.

The current line of House of Stuart and House of Hanover rests with Pat Shupe of Seattle, Washington. She has remained outside of England since Queen Victoria these last three generations due to continual financial threats and threats of loss of life so the House of Stuart would not be extinguished from the earth.

Source:

1) Declaration of Arbroath
http://www.geo.ed.ac.uk/home/scotland/arbroath_english.html

2) Act of Union 1707.
http://www.parliament.uk/actofunion/ http://www.highlanderweb.co.uk/wallace/1707act.htm
@
3) French and Indian War in 1763
http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/related/proc63.htm
Seven years War (1756-1763)
http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/wars_sevenyears.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish-Portuguese_War,_1761-1763

4) Hitler saw Duke of Windsor as 'no enemy' US file reveals
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2003/jan/25/freedomofinformation.monarchy

5) http://www.dooyoo.co.uk/printed-books/king-kaiser-tsar-three-royal-cousins-who-led-the-world-to-war-catrine-clay/1254428/

6) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/theroyalfamily/3690776/The-Queens-Royal-Palaces-let-down-over-wait-for-32million-building-work.html

7) http://www.bing.com/reference/semhtml/Battle_of_Culloden?src=abop&fwd=1&q=battle+of+culloden&qpvt=battle+of+culloden

Additional Sources:

a) Jacobite website Act of Union 1707
http://www.jacobite.ca/documents/1707union.htm

b) http://www.highlanderweb.co.uk/wallace/1707act.htm
But one portion in here which states James VIII being Catholic is completely incorrect. He studies in a French Catholic School which was the only means of education. He never was Catholic.