Human Rights Organization for Justice, Unity, Peace, and Solidarity
Sean Mc Manus with Congressman Ben Gilman (R-NY) in 1989.
ANTI-CATHOLICISM AND THE ENDURING PATHOLOGY
1.
"Charles could not become King if he were Catholic (Jews, Muslims are fine, but not Catholics)--Patrick Murphy
IRISH CONGRESSIONAL BRIEFING
Distributed to Congress by Irish National Caucus
The Irish National Caucus has received hundreds of requests to republish this previous posting from March 19, 2022.
November 27. 2022
“The Irish National Caucus (founded February 6, 1974) was the first and only major Irish-American organization in the last almost 50 years to raise in the U.S. Congress the sectarian, anti-Catholic foundation stone of the British constitution since the Act of Settlement 1701 to this very day.
Only two Irish-Americans involved in the Irish issue objected to our efforts on the grounds—wait for it!—the British constitution had nothing to do with sectarian anti-Catholic bigotry and discrimination in Northern Ireland!!! (Yes, that deserves three exclamation points).
And those two ‘useful idiots’ (for the British Monarchy) also claimed the issue had no relevance to Congress—as if Congress was not aware of the importance and wisdom of the ‘Establishment Clause'(‘the clause in the First Amendment of the US Constitution that prohibits the
establishment of religion by Congress’—my online dictionary).
So, these two ‘useful idiots’ who tried to lecture this Fermanagh man on the history anti-Catholic discrimination in Northern Ireland were not only ignorant of the British constitution but appallingly ignorant of the American Constitution.
The anti-Catholic essence of the British (unwritten and non-codified) constitution would be like a clause in the American Constitution that a Black person could not be president of the United States. But then, that might also be acceptable to the two ‘useful idiots’ —that is the inherent logic of their position.
So, it was refreshing to read the realistic assessment of the British Monarchy in this article ‘The unreasonable past still walks amongst us’ by Patrick Murphy, Irish News of Belfast, Saturday, March 19, 2022. —Fr. Sean Mc Manus.
The unreasonable past still walks amongst us
Patrick Murphy. Irish News. Belfast, Saturday. March 19, 2022.
As the inhumanity continues in Ukraine and the world waits in fear of a wider conflict, Ireland is about to be willingly distracted from reality.
While its leaders fervently advocate democracy, they are preparing to welcome a future head of state whose position is about as undemocratic as you could imagine.
Yes, Prince Charles is heading to the 26 counties next week for a state visit, as “part of the royal family’s spring tours to mark Queen Elizabeth’s platinum jubilee.”
While the Irish ridicule the (elected) Boris Johnson as a Tory toff, they will cheer Charles, Britain’s number one (unelected) toff.
The difficulty with his visit is not that he is English, but that he has no moral or political authority to be a future head of state (which includes this part of Ireland).
Some argue that the royal family is highly popular, a view which might be tested by having them all stand for election.
Many English oppose the monarchy. When stopped by Royal Marines during the Troubles, shortly after Prince Edward joined them, I asked their opinion of him. They were less than complimentary about his entire family (He later dropped out of the training). These were English republicans (and probably more republican than some in the IRA turned out to be).
Those who defend the monarchy argue that it is all harmless pageant. Sadly, this is untrue. Following press revelations, we know that more than 1,000 laws were secretly vetted by the queen or Charles before they were approved by parliament.
The queen is also given draft parliamentary bills affecting the Crown’s interests and is asked for consent to debate them. Her private lawyer reportedly pressurized ministers to alter proposed legislation to prevent her shareholdings from being publicly disclosed. She advised Scottish voters to “think very carefully about the future” in the independence referendum, suggesting she wanted a ‘No’ vote. The (unelected) royals exercise political power.
Since becoming queen (and head of the armed services), Britain has been involved in over 25 foreign wars.
This week Sinn Féin helped to plant a tree in her honor at Stormont.
These recent wars follow 500 years of the British empire’s invasion, suppression, and exploitation which, just a century ago, ruled a quarter of the world’s population by force.
Last week Charles condemned Russia’s “brutal aggression”.
Of course, Charles could not become king if he were Catholic (Jews, Muslims, or Hindus are fine, but not Catholics). The monarch is also head of the state’s official religion, the Church of England. The House of Lords reserves 26 seats for its bishops, one of the few parliaments in the world where religion directly influences civil law. [Iran is the only other country where parliament reserves places for unelected clerics.]
The argument for his Irish visit is that it will improve Anglo-Irish relations. That is a distraction to mold public opinion. I work with English people. They are all sensible, decent, rational individuals, who are mainly highly skilled scientists. Our ability to work together will not be affected by royal behavior.
(My only difficulty with them is that they can be so unbearably reasonable, an affliction from which we rarely suffer.)
So, while the Irish cheer Charles, how would they feel if they had to pay for President Higgins to have seven palaces, about 20 other residences, an extended family costing about £350 million annually, and was also the head of a Church that reserved Seanad seats for its bishops?
By welcoming Charles, they deny that the whole concept of royalty is quite insane, dating from when people burned witches. It is a form of publicly funded Disney-style escapism, which romanticizes the massive inequality in British society by suggesting that the poor should be grateful for being patronized by the obscenely wealthy.
It is a wealth largely stolen from colonies across the globe (including Ireland) and used to build royal palaces and Whitehall’s magnificence.
But that, you say, is all in the unreasonable past. It should be. But how can it, when the unreasonable past still walks amongst us?
END.
2.
KING CHARLES SWEARS THE HISTORIC ANTI-CATHOLIC OATH
May 7, 2023
Our Social Media Post and email blasts yesterday with its short comment in red (below) on the coronation of King Charles evoked a huge response. People wanted more information on State-sponsored anti-Catholicism in the UK and Northern Ireland.
So, we republish the 2017 article from the Irish Echo, below the red text.
The coronation of King Charles and the words of the oath he swore—solemnly, formally, and as King— raises anew this issue, which The Guardian in a 2001 Editorial described as “the basis for the modern-day monarchy - an act of parliament which explicitly discriminates against Catholics.” … And which Tony Blair, God bless him, called when no longer Prime Minister, “plainly discriminatory.”
If the sectarian words of the King’s oath don’t mean much to the average English person, their anti-Catholic resonance mean everything to a significant number of extreme Orange/Protestant/Unionist supremacists in Northern Ireland … And everyone who knows anything about how the artificial and undemocratic mini-State of Northern Ireland came into existence, knows that … But they also know that it was NOT the Protestants who created Northern Ireland, but the London Parliament by its “Partition Act” (December 23, 1920), with the assent of the King of England, George VI, the grandfather of King Charles.
Our Social Media Post and email blasts yesterday with its short comment in red (below) on the coronation of King Charles evoked a huge response. People wanted more information on State-sponsored anti-Catholicism in the UK and Northern Ireland.
So, we republish the 2017 article from the Irish Echo, below the red text.
The coronation of King Charles and the words of the oath he swore—solemnly, formally, and as King— raises anew this issue, which The Guardian in a 2001 Editorial described as “the basis for the modern-day monarchy - an act of parliament which explicitly discriminates against Catholics.” … And which Tony Blair, God bless him, called when no longer Prime Minister, “plainly discriminatory.”
If the sectarian words of the King’s oath don’t mean much to the average English person, their anti-Catholic resonance mean everything to a significant number of extreme Orange/Protestant/Unionist supremacists in Northern Ireland … And everyone who knows anything about how the artificial and undemocratic mini-State of Northern Ireland came into existence, knows that … But they also know that it was NOT the Protestants who created Northern Ireland, but the London Parliament by its “Partition Act” (December 23, 1920), with the assent of the King of England, George VI, the grandfather of King Charles.
RISH CONGRESSIONAL BRIEFING
Distributed to Congress by Irish National Caucus
Distributed to Congress by Irish National Caucus
“Whatever one thinks of the King Charles coronation, it did at least highlight the point the Irish National Caucus has stressed for many years—the sectarian, discriminatory, and anti-Catholic clauses of the unwritten and uncodified British constitution. Those clauses are the foundation stone of the Royal Family, since 1701.”
—Fr. Sean Mc Manus. [ May 7, 2023].
—Fr. Sean Mc Manus. [ May 7, 2023].
Don’t Mention Anti-Catholicism in The North
Irish Echo. May 31-June 6, 2017 (page 12)
Echo Opinion
Thanks to The Irish People newspaper (now discontinued) being digitalized, one can read this:
“Father Sean McManus in giving the Benediction said:
‘We pray for an Ireland free and independent, where the little man, the man of no property, the ordinary guy, can walk tall without having to depend on political patronage…. An Ireland where all power, whether political, ecclesiastical, military or economic will always be used for the good of the people.
We pray, in particular, that once the divisive British presence has been banished, we will have a Country of harmony and reconciliation. An Ireland where religion will never again be used as a political device. An Ireland where the Catholic man from the Falls Road can go and have a pint of Guinness with his Protestant pal from the Shankill Road. . . An Ireland where the young Protestant woman from the Shankill Road can date the young Catholic man from the Falls Road.
We pray above all for the little children of Ireland that one day they will soon be able to share the same playground, the same classroom, the same school, and, yes, one day the same Church to worship the same God that died for both.’”(Second Annual Irish Northern Aid Dinner, New York City. January 18, 1974.The Irish People Newspaper. Page 9. January 26, 1974).
That brought back a lot of memories.
It also bears witness that this Fermanagh man has always had a deep ecumenical theology and has been animated by a non-sectarian vision for his homeland—or as Wolfe Tone put it, the desire to “substitute the common name of Irishman, in place of the denominations of Protestant, Catholic and Dissenter.”
When I first came to America on October 2, 1972, I saw it as my duty to counteract England’s Big Lie: that there was a “Religious War” in Northern Ireland (the Six Counties of Ireland that England was still holding onto). But being from Fermanagh, I knew it would be silly and woefully non-historical to ignore that, in fact, England had (since The English Reformation, as distinct from the German Reformation) used Anti-Catholicism as a major weapon in its conquest of Ireland. Before the English Reformation (1169 to 1536), very Catholic England oppressed very Catholic Ireland without using the weapon of Anti-Catholicism.
Some silly Irish-Americans, however, felt that to deny that there was a Religious War in Northern Ireland they had to avoid condemning Anti-Catholic discrimination. That stupid idea was spread by the Stickies (the Official Republican Movement, as distinct from the Provisional Republican Movement. (It was also spread by the British Embassy, naturally).
In the early 80s, I launched a campaign to expose the constitutional foundation of Anti-Catholicism in Ireland: The Act of Settlement, 1701—the foundation stone of the Royal Family.
This Act still TODAY forbids a Catholic from being the Monarch. Like having a provision in the U.S. Constitution barring a Black person from being President. I always point out that the Orangemen did not enact the Act of Settlement. Thus, State-sponsored sectarianism and Anti-Catholic bigotry are enshrined in the unwritten, non-codified British Constitution.
One person — believing in the Stickie nonsense and the British Big Lie — tried to oppose my campaign: “[McManus claims] Americans should be objecting to the Act of Settlement… under the belief it has something to do with the conflict in Ireland. It is quite possibly the most idiotic thing for Americans to be lobbying for.”
How convenient — absolving the British Monarchy and Parliament from any connection with “the conflict in Ireland.”
Fortunately, nobody listened to that egregious nonsense.
However, the Big Lie is hard to keep down. It has popped up recently.
Another person — the spiritual heir, perhaps, to the former person — took to the internet to decry my analysis of the root causes of Anti-Catholicism in Northern Ireland, and how the Protestants are not to be ultimately blamed but the British Constitution: “Sean McManus’ continued harping on it being Catholics vs. the world drives me nuts – it’s counterproductive to progress.”
A bit like trying to dismiss African-Americans’ opposition to Anti-Black bigotry as being counterproductive to progress. God save us from such progress—and from such egregious misunderstanding!
Furthermore, isn’t the phrase “Catholics against the world” a very strange formulation for someone proclaiming his concern for justice in Northern Ireland? It almost betrays an animus for all Catholics in the world, period.
But isn’t it a bit ironic that this Fermanagh man has to listen to lectures from people who apparently have a very superficial understanding of the real nature of England’s rule in Ireland.
Indeed, especially ironic, given the quoted Benediction at the beginning of this article over 43 years ago about my vision for the relationship between northern Protestants and Catholics.
Not to mention that for this year, the 500th anniversary of Luther’s Reformation, I have made many statements rejoicing in the theological agreement between the Catholic Church and the Lutheran World Federation on the Doctrine of Justification — the one issue that more than anything else sparked the Reformation; and welcoming also the fact that the Anglican/Episcopalian Church and the World Methodist Council have endorsed the Agreement on Justification.
Echo Opinion
Thanks to The Irish People newspaper (now discontinued) being digitalized, one can read this:
“Father Sean McManus in giving the Benediction said:
‘We pray for an Ireland free and independent, where the little man, the man of no property, the ordinary guy, can walk tall without having to depend on political patronage…. An Ireland where all power, whether political, ecclesiastical, military or economic will always be used for the good of the people.
We pray, in particular, that once the divisive British presence has been banished, we will have a Country of harmony and reconciliation. An Ireland where religion will never again be used as a political device. An Ireland where the Catholic man from the Falls Road can go and have a pint of Guinness with his Protestant pal from the Shankill Road. . . An Ireland where the young Protestant woman from the Shankill Road can date the young Catholic man from the Falls Road.
We pray above all for the little children of Ireland that one day they will soon be able to share the same playground, the same classroom, the same school, and, yes, one day the same Church to worship the same God that died for both.’”(Second Annual Irish Northern Aid Dinner, New York City. January 18, 1974.The Irish People Newspaper. Page 9. January 26, 1974).
That brought back a lot of memories.
It also bears witness that this Fermanagh man has always had a deep ecumenical theology and has been animated by a non-sectarian vision for his homeland—or as Wolfe Tone put it, the desire to “substitute the common name of Irishman, in place of the denominations of Protestant, Catholic and Dissenter.”
When I first came to America on October 2, 1972, I saw it as my duty to counteract England’s Big Lie: that there was a “Religious War” in Northern Ireland (the Six Counties of Ireland that England was still holding onto). But being from Fermanagh, I knew it would be silly and woefully non-historical to ignore that, in fact, England had (since The English Reformation, as distinct from the German Reformation) used Anti-Catholicism as a major weapon in its conquest of Ireland. Before the English Reformation (1169 to 1536), very Catholic England oppressed very Catholic Ireland without using the weapon of Anti-Catholicism.
Some silly Irish-Americans, however, felt that to deny that there was a Religious War in Northern Ireland they had to avoid condemning Anti-Catholic discrimination. That stupid idea was spread by the Stickies (the Official Republican Movement, as distinct from the Provisional Republican Movement. (It was also spread by the British Embassy, naturally).
In the early 80s, I launched a campaign to expose the constitutional foundation of Anti-Catholicism in Ireland: The Act of Settlement, 1701—the foundation stone of the Royal Family.
This Act still TODAY forbids a Catholic from being the Monarch. Like having a provision in the U.S. Constitution barring a Black person from being President. I always point out that the Orangemen did not enact the Act of Settlement. Thus, State-sponsored sectarianism and Anti-Catholic bigotry are enshrined in the unwritten, non-codified British Constitution.
One person — believing in the Stickie nonsense and the British Big Lie — tried to oppose my campaign: “[McManus claims] Americans should be objecting to the Act of Settlement… under the belief it has something to do with the conflict in Ireland. It is quite possibly the most idiotic thing for Americans to be lobbying for.”
How convenient — absolving the British Monarchy and Parliament from any connection with “the conflict in Ireland.”
Fortunately, nobody listened to that egregious nonsense.
However, the Big Lie is hard to keep down. It has popped up recently.
Another person — the spiritual heir, perhaps, to the former person — took to the internet to decry my analysis of the root causes of Anti-Catholicism in Northern Ireland, and how the Protestants are not to be ultimately blamed but the British Constitution: “Sean McManus’ continued harping on it being Catholics vs. the world drives me nuts – it’s counterproductive to progress.”
A bit like trying to dismiss African-Americans’ opposition to Anti-Black bigotry as being counterproductive to progress. God save us from such progress—and from such egregious misunderstanding!
Furthermore, isn’t the phrase “Catholics against the world” a very strange formulation for someone proclaiming his concern for justice in Northern Ireland? It almost betrays an animus for all Catholics in the world, period.
But isn’t it a bit ironic that this Fermanagh man has to listen to lectures from people who apparently have a very superficial understanding of the real nature of England’s rule in Ireland.
Indeed, especially ironic, given the quoted Benediction at the beginning of this article over 43 years ago about my vision for the relationship between northern Protestants and Catholics.
Not to mention that for this year, the 500th anniversary of Luther’s Reformation, I have made many statements rejoicing in the theological agreement between the Catholic Church and the Lutheran World Federation on the Doctrine of Justification — the one issue that more than anything else sparked the Reformation; and welcoming also the fact that the Anglican/Episcopalian Church and the World Methodist Council have endorsed the Agreement on Justification.
3.
Fr. Mc Manus Responds to Scottish Daily Express Article:
MAY 11, 2023
“Pro-Joe Biden Catholic group claims King's Coronation ceremony was SECTARIAN.” Saturday, May 6, 2023.
(Printed below this response).
The Scottish Daily Express pretends surprise and shock that I should refer to the historic coronation oath Prince Charles III swore as 'anti-Catholic and sectarian.' As if this issue was not known since the Bill of Rights 1689 and the Act of Settlement, 1701.
Well, let me help out the Scottish Daily Express by referring it to the Royal Family website, where it declares without equivocation:'The Act laid down that only Protestants… are eligible to succeed [to the Throne]. Subsequent Acts have confirmed this.
Parliament, under the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement, also laid down various conditions which the Sovereign must meet. A Roman Catholic is specifically excluded from succession to the throne.'— https://www.royal.uk/succession
MAY 11, 2023
“Pro-Joe Biden Catholic group claims King's Coronation ceremony was SECTARIAN.” Saturday, May 6, 2023.
(Printed below this response).
The Scottish Daily Express pretends surprise and shock that I should refer to the historic coronation oath Prince Charles III swore as 'anti-Catholic and sectarian.' As if this issue was not known since the Bill of Rights 1689 and the Act of Settlement, 1701.
Well, let me help out the Scottish Daily Express by referring it to the Royal Family website, where it declares without equivocation:'The Act laid down that only Protestants… are eligible to succeed [to the Throne]. Subsequent Acts have confirmed this.
Parliament, under the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement, also laid down various conditions which the Sovereign must meet. A Roman Catholic is specifically excluded from succession to the throne.'— https://www.royal.uk/succession
Furthermore, the Bill of Rights 1689, states that should monarchs convert to Roman Catholicism, they immediately and automatically cease to be monarchs (“be forever incapable to inherit, possess, or enjoy the Crown”) and that the subjects are absolved from their allegiance.
Some like to seek an excuse for all the above State-sponsored anti-Catholicism by claiming it’s that way because the Monarch is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England. Well, that is no excuse. It simply shows the wisdom of the framers of the American Constitution who rejected the idea of an established Church, knowing from England’s record that an established church by definition is sectarian, and discriminatory. And for the record, if there were a law that the President of Ireland had to be Catholic, I would oppose that just as much—it would be sectarian, anti-Protestant, anti-Semitic, anti-Islam, etc., etc.
The British constitution and the foundation stone of the Royal Family are, by definition, anti-Catholic, discriminatory, and sectarian. That may not mean too much to the average English person in the street (but that does not excuse them either), but it means a whole lot to a significant number of Orange, Unionists/Protestant supremacists in Northern Ireland.
Indeed, the unwritten, uncodified British constitution is the root cause of bitter and deadly anti-Catholicism in the racist (anti-Irish) and sectarian (anti-Catholic) artificial and undemocratic mini-State of Northern Ireland because it enshrines, condones, and legitimizes anti-Catholicism.
That significant number of supremacist Protestants in Northern Ireland can simply say, ‘We are just upholding the British constitution as faithful subjects of King Chares III.’
But it was not the Protestants in the North of Ireland who created that racist and sectarian Six-County State. It was the London Parliament by its 'Partition Act' unilaterally passed on December 23, 1920, with the assent of the King of England—George V, great-grandfather of Charles III. … So, the buck stops with the King and Parliament (or, as they like to say, ‘the King in Parliament’)
Finally, let me further help out the Scottish Daily Express with this long-established fact since I founded the Irish National Caucus on February 6, 1974:The Irish National Caucus is neither Republican nor Democrat. It is bipartisan. For years we have had many ‘Congressional Friends of the Irish National Caucus,’ both Republicans and Democrats. We ask all Members of Congress and all Americans to apply established American foreign policy principles to Ireland: national self-determination, national independence, respect for international human rights, etc., etc. …All summed up in our founding motto, modeled on the American Pledge of Allegiance —now an Internet Petition, signed by over 31,000 people—' Ireland, too, has the right to be One Nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.’
What good American—and for that matter, what good Scottish person —could oppose this splendid Petition?
—Fr. Sean Mc Manus. Thursday, May11, 2023
END.
>>>
Some like to seek an excuse for all the above State-sponsored anti-Catholicism by claiming it’s that way because the Monarch is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England. Well, that is no excuse. It simply shows the wisdom of the framers of the American Constitution who rejected the idea of an established Church, knowing from England’s record that an established church by definition is sectarian, and discriminatory. And for the record, if there were a law that the President of Ireland had to be Catholic, I would oppose that just as much—it would be sectarian, anti-Protestant, anti-Semitic, anti-Islam, etc., etc.
The British constitution and the foundation stone of the Royal Family are, by definition, anti-Catholic, discriminatory, and sectarian. That may not mean too much to the average English person in the street (but that does not excuse them either), but it means a whole lot to a significant number of Orange, Unionists/Protestant supremacists in Northern Ireland.
Indeed, the unwritten, uncodified British constitution is the root cause of bitter and deadly anti-Catholicism in the racist (anti-Irish) and sectarian (anti-Catholic) artificial and undemocratic mini-State of Northern Ireland because it enshrines, condones, and legitimizes anti-Catholicism.
That significant number of supremacist Protestants in Northern Ireland can simply say, ‘We are just upholding the British constitution as faithful subjects of King Chares III.’
But it was not the Protestants in the North of Ireland who created that racist and sectarian Six-County State. It was the London Parliament by its 'Partition Act' unilaterally passed on December 23, 1920, with the assent of the King of England—George V, great-grandfather of Charles III. … So, the buck stops with the King and Parliament (or, as they like to say, ‘the King in Parliament’)
Finally, let me further help out the Scottish Daily Express with this long-established fact since I founded the Irish National Caucus on February 6, 1974:The Irish National Caucus is neither Republican nor Democrat. It is bipartisan. For years we have had many ‘Congressional Friends of the Irish National Caucus,’ both Republicans and Democrats. We ask all Members of Congress and all Americans to apply established American foreign policy principles to Ireland: national self-determination, national independence, respect for international human rights, etc., etc. …All summed up in our founding motto, modeled on the American Pledge of Allegiance —now an Internet Petition, signed by over 31,000 people—' Ireland, too, has the right to be One Nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.’
What good American—and for that matter, what good Scottish person —could oppose this splendid Petition?
—Fr. Sean Mc Manus. Thursday, May11, 2023
END.
>>>
https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/uk-news/pro-joe-biden-catholic-group-29946309
Pro-Joe Biden Catholic group claims King's Coronation ceremony was SECTARIAN
The anti-British Irish National Caucus group, which campaigns in the USA for a United Ireland, branded the oath taken by King Charles 'state-sponsored anti-Catholicism'
By Douglas Dickie Content editor. Scottish Daily Express. Wednesday, May 10, 2023.
London.England. – Saturday, May 6: King Charles III holds the Sovereign's Ring, also called the Coronation Ring, during his coronation ceremony in Westminster Abbey on May 6, 2023, in London, England. The Coronation of Charles III and his wife, Camilla, as King and Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the other Commonwealth realms takes place at Westminster Abbey today. Charles acceded to the throne on 8 September 2022, upon the death of his mother, Elizabeth II.
A pro-Catholic pressure group strongly supportive of Joe Biden has branded the Coronation ceremony sectarian in a bizarre blast. Millions across the world watched in delight as King Charles III was crowned at Westminster Abbey on May 6.
But less impressed was the influential anti-British Irish National Caucus (INC) lobbying body, which campaigns in the US for a United Ireland. It pointed to the part in the ceremony where the King promises to "secure the Protestant succession to the Throne". The group's founder Father Sean McManus, who was once based as a Redemptorist father in Perth, claimed the statement was a form of "state-sponsored anti-Catholicism".
During the ceremony, Charles made the oath: "solemnly and sincerely in the presence of God profess, testify, and declare that I am a faithful Protestant and that I will, according to the true intent of the enactments which secure the Protestant succession to the Throne, uphold and maintain the said enactments to the best of my powers according to law."
As monarch, he is head of the Church of England, and also swore to uphold “the laws of God and the true profession of the gospel, maintain the Protestant Reformed religion established by law and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established". Charles had previously said he wanted to be a defender of all faiths, and in a change to tradition, the Archbishop of Canterbury, who performed the ceremony, said the Church of England "will seek to foster an environment where people of all faiths and beliefs may live freely".
But the INC, which has links to America's Democratic Party, blasted the oath. In an extraordinary attack, McManus said: "The coronation of King Charles and the words of the oath he swore -- solemnly, formally, and as King -- raises anew the issue of state-sponsored anti-Catholicism in the UK and Northern Ireland."
He added: "If the sectarian words of the King’s oath don’t mean much to the average person, their anti-Catholic resonance means everything to a significant number of extreme Orange/Protestant/Unionist supremacists in Northern Ireland." In a blog piece he said the oath was "like having a clause in American Constitution prohibiting a Black being President".
McManus set up the INC in 1974 as a way to spread anti-British sentiment in the States at a time of extreme tension in Northern Ireland. Democratic president Jimmy Carter even approached the group in 1976 ahead of the election to try and win support from voters with an Irish-Catholic background.
Both the UK and Irish governments in the 1980s suspected the group of being linked to NORAID, which raised funds in America for the Provisional IRA. The group back candidates in elections who do not believe Northern Ireland should exist.
Its website contains several articles praising current POTUS Mr Biden, who infamously snubbed the Coronation ceremony, instead of sending his wife and daughter. Reacting to Mr. Biden's election win over Donald Trump in 2020, McManus said it was the end of a "nightmare."
Pro-Joe Biden Catholic group claims King's Coronation ceremony was SECTARIAN
The anti-British Irish National Caucus group, which campaigns in the USA for a United Ireland, branded the oath taken by King Charles 'state-sponsored anti-Catholicism'
By Douglas Dickie Content editor. Scottish Daily Express. Wednesday, May 10, 2023.
London.England. – Saturday, May 6: King Charles III holds the Sovereign's Ring, also called the Coronation Ring, during his coronation ceremony in Westminster Abbey on May 6, 2023, in London, England. The Coronation of Charles III and his wife, Camilla, as King and Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the other Commonwealth realms takes place at Westminster Abbey today. Charles acceded to the throne on 8 September 2022, upon the death of his mother, Elizabeth II.
A pro-Catholic pressure group strongly supportive of Joe Biden has branded the Coronation ceremony sectarian in a bizarre blast. Millions across the world watched in delight as King Charles III was crowned at Westminster Abbey on May 6.
But less impressed was the influential anti-British Irish National Caucus (INC) lobbying body, which campaigns in the US for a United Ireland. It pointed to the part in the ceremony where the King promises to "secure the Protestant succession to the Throne". The group's founder Father Sean McManus, who was once based as a Redemptorist father in Perth, claimed the statement was a form of "state-sponsored anti-Catholicism".
During the ceremony, Charles made the oath: "solemnly and sincerely in the presence of God profess, testify, and declare that I am a faithful Protestant and that I will, according to the true intent of the enactments which secure the Protestant succession to the Throne, uphold and maintain the said enactments to the best of my powers according to law."
As monarch, he is head of the Church of England, and also swore to uphold “the laws of God and the true profession of the gospel, maintain the Protestant Reformed religion established by law and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established". Charles had previously said he wanted to be a defender of all faiths, and in a change to tradition, the Archbishop of Canterbury, who performed the ceremony, said the Church of England "will seek to foster an environment where people of all faiths and beliefs may live freely".
But the INC, which has links to America's Democratic Party, blasted the oath. In an extraordinary attack, McManus said: "The coronation of King Charles and the words of the oath he swore -- solemnly, formally, and as King -- raises anew the issue of state-sponsored anti-Catholicism in the UK and Northern Ireland."
He added: "If the sectarian words of the King’s oath don’t mean much to the average person, their anti-Catholic resonance means everything to a significant number of extreme Orange/Protestant/Unionist supremacists in Northern Ireland." In a blog piece he said the oath was "like having a clause in American Constitution prohibiting a Black being President".
McManus set up the INC in 1974 as a way to spread anti-British sentiment in the States at a time of extreme tension in Northern Ireland. Democratic president Jimmy Carter even approached the group in 1976 ahead of the election to try and win support from voters with an Irish-Catholic background.
Both the UK and Irish governments in the 1980s suspected the group of being linked to NORAID, which raised funds in America for the Provisional IRA. The group back candidates in elections who do not believe Northern Ireland should exist.
Its website contains several articles praising current POTUS Mr Biden, who infamously snubbed the Coronation ceremony, instead of sending his wife and daughter. Reacting to Mr. Biden's election win over Donald Trump in 2020, McManus said it was the end of a "nightmare."
4.
Belfast Telegraph Censors, Excommunicates, Irish National Caucus for Publishing “BRITISH ROYAL FAMILY EXPLAINS ENGLAND’S STATE-SPONSORED ANTI-CATHOLICISM.”
Saturday, May 13, 2023. EST.
Fr. Sean Mc Manus explains: “I decided as a public service to help the Royal Family explain England’s State-Sponsored anti-Catholicism.
I thought —in the interest of fair and balanced comment —I should not only give my own opinion but also that of the Royal Family.
Saturday, May 13, 2023. EST.
Fr. Sean Mc Manus explains: “I decided as a public service to help the Royal Family explain England’s State-Sponsored anti-Catholicism.
I thought —in the interest of fair and balanced comment —I should not only give my own opinion but also that of the Royal Family.
You see, a number of people kept asking, 'Could Fr. Mc Manus be possibly right in stating a Catholic— by law, by the British constitution, by the very foundation-stone of the Royal Family— is prohibited from being King or Queen of England.'
So, I did the fair and balanced thing: published in full the relevant section of the 'official website of the British Royal Family'—
www.royal.uk/encyclopedia/succession
Turns out, the Royal Family’s explanation is much more blunt than my explanations. For example, to make sure people clearly understand the implications of ‘Protestant succession to the Throne', the Royal Family website, categorically spells it out: 'A Roman Catholic is specifically excluded from succession to the throne.’ …
No Kinawley man could put it more bluntly than that.
And maybe that’s why the Belfast Telegraph, responded thus:
So, I did the fair and balanced thing: published in full the relevant section of the 'official website of the British Royal Family'—
www.royal.uk/encyclopedia/succession
Turns out, the Royal Family’s explanation is much more blunt than my explanations. For example, to make sure people clearly understand the implications of ‘Protestant succession to the Throne', the Royal Family website, categorically spells it out: 'A Roman Catholic is specifically excluded from succession to the throne.’ …
No Kinawley man could put it more bluntly than that.
And maybe that’s why the Belfast Telegraph, responded thus:
“BRITISH ROYAL FAMILY EXPLAINS ENGLAND’S STATE-SPONSORED ANTI-CATHOLICISM.”
newseditor@belfasttelegraph.co.uk
Unsubscribed by Constant Contact on May 12, 2023, at 11:03 am EDT.
newseditor@belfasttelegraph.co.uk
Unsubscribed by Constant Contact on May 12, 2023, at 11:03 am EDT.
You see, dear reader, when a newspaper —especially its "news editor"— centrally involved in an issue "unsubscribes"
from one's Press Releases, that is commonly seen as the modern version, in effect, of CENSORSHIP without the newspaper having to admit ugly and bigoted censorship.
So, I am sorry the Belfast Telegraph will not join my “fair and balanced” policy in helping the Royal Family explain England’s official position on its official anti-Catholic law. However, that is not going to deter this Kinawley man, therefore, we publish again the entire, previous post the Belfast Telegraph does not want you to read.
God bless America and God save Ireland. —Fr. Sean McManus
from one's Press Releases, that is commonly seen as the modern version, in effect, of CENSORSHIP without the newspaper having to admit ugly and bigoted censorship.
So, I am sorry the Belfast Telegraph will not join my “fair and balanced” policy in helping the Royal Family explain England’s official position on its official anti-Catholic law. However, that is not going to deter this Kinawley man, therefore, we publish again the entire, previous post the Belfast Telegraph does not want you to read.
God bless America and God save Ireland. —Fr. Sean McManus
BELOW IS WHAT THE IRISH NATIONAL CAUCUS ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED ON FRIDAY, MAY 12, 2023.
“BRITISH ROYAL FAMILY EXPLAINS ENGLAND’S STATE-SPONSORED ANTI-CATHOLICISM.”
—Fr. Sean McManus.
WEBSITE OF BRITISH ROYAL FAMILY
https://www.royal.uk/encyclopedia/succession
This is the official website of the British Royal Family. Written and managed by the Royal Household at Buckingham Palace, the site aims to provide an authoritative resource of information about the Monarchy and Royal Family, past and present.
The succession to the throne is regulated not only through descent but also by Parliamentary statute. The order of succession is the sequence of members of the Royal Family in the order in which they stand in line to the throne.
The basis for the succession was determined in the constitutional developments of the seventeenth century, which culminated in the Bill of Rights (1689) and the Act of Settlement (1701).
When James II fled the country in 1688, Parliament held that he had 'abdicated the government' and that the throne was vacant. The throne was then offered, not to James's young son, but to his daughter Mary and her husband William of Orange, as joint rulers.
It, therefore, came to be established not only that the Sovereign rules through Parliament, but that the succession to the throne can be regulated by Parliament, and that a Sovereign can be deprived of his/her title through misgovernment. The Act of Settlement confirmed that it was for Parliament to determine the title to the throne.
The Act laid down that only Protestant descendants of Princess Sophia - the Electress of Hanover and granddaughter of James I - are eligible to succeed. Subsequent Acts have confirmed this.
Parliament, under the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement, also laid down various conditions which the Sovereign must meet. A Roman Catholic is specifically excluded from succession to the throne.
The Sovereign must, in addition, be in communion with the Church of England and must swear to preserve the established Church of England and the established Church of Scotland. The Sovereign must also promise to uphold the Protestant succession.
The Succession to the Crown Act (2013) amended the provisions of the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement to end the system of male primogeniture, under which a younger son can displace an elder daughter in the line of succession. The Act applies to those born after 28 October 2011. The Act also ended the provisions by which those who marry Roman Catholics are disqualified from the line of succession. The changes came into force in all sixteen Realms in March 2015.
5.
King Charles’ Coronation Oath Proves to the World Fr. McManus’ Claim: That the British Constitution and the very Foundation Stone of the Royal Family mandate State-Sponsored anti-Catholicism, Sectarianism, and Bigotry.
May 25, 2023
Text of anti-Catholic oath sworn by King Charles
“I Charles do solemnly and sincerely in the presence of God profess, testify, and declare that I am a faithful Protestant and that I will, according to the true intent of the enactments which secure the Protestant succession to the Throne, uphold, and maintain the said enactments to the best of my powers according to law.”
"Protestant succession to the Throne," as explained below, is code for one, and only one thing: NO CATHOLIC ALLOWED IN BRITISH CONSTITUTION TO BE MONARCH.
Thursday, May 25, 2023
Fr. Sean McManus, author of My American Struggle for Justice in Northern Ireland. 2023 U.S.A. Re-print.(Amazon). The unique, authoritative classic on his struggle—against all odds—to get the U.S. Congress to stand up for justice and peace in Ireland …No other book tells or can tell this story. Click link—
http://www.irishnationalcaucus.org/20034-2/
Bio: Father Sean McManus, Northern Ireland Troubles Expert.
202-544-0568.
Email —Sean@IrishNational Caucus.org
Fr. Sean McManus (79) is the leading expert in America on The Troubles in Northern Ireland where he was born and reared. He is Founder/President of the Capitol Hill-based Irish National Caucus and Chief Judge of the World Peace Prize.
He studied and trained for the priesthood in Britain. In 1972, Church and State exiled him from Britain to the U.S. because he refused to be silent about injustice in Northern Ireland.
In 1974, he founded the Irish National Caucus (IrishNationalCaucus.org): “Thus Mc Manus became Britain’s nemesis in America, the driving force that would eventually erode Britain’s influence within the U.S. Government.” (American Policy and Northern Ireland: A Saga of Peacebuilding. Professor Joseph E. Thompson. 2001).
Fr. Mc Manus has been a lone voice in pointing out that the root cause of anti-Catholicism in Northern Ireland is the British constitution which enshrines, sanctions, and mandates appalling and deadly anti-Catholicism. (However, he seems to have raised consciousness in Britain itself where a number of people like Tony Blair and newspapers like The Guardian have condemned the
State-sponsored anti-Catholicism over the past twenty to thirty years).
One need only quote the Web Site of the British Royal Family to see
this appalling discrimination and bigotry officially and unequivocally declared and explained, without the slightest hint of embarrassment or shame:
“The basis for the succession[to the Throne] was determined in the constitutional developments of the seventeenth century, which culminated in the Bill of Rights (1689) and the Act of Settlement (1701). The Act laid down that only Protestants… are eligible to succeed [to the Throne]. Subsequent Acts have confirmed this.
Parliament, under the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement, also laid down various conditions which the Sovereign must meet. A Roman Catholic is specifically excluded from succession to the throne.'— https://www.royal.uk/succession
Furthermore, the Bill of Rights 1689 states that should monarchs convert to Roman Catholicism, they immediately and automatically cease to be monarchs (“be forever incapable to inherit, possess, or enjoy the Crown”) and that the subjects are absolved from their allegiance.
All this abhorrent and disgraceful hatred would be like having a clause in the American Constitution that prohibits a Black being President. Imagine how that would have sanctioned, promoted, and incited deadly White supremacy… Well, that’s what England’s rule and laws have done in Northern Ireland … You see this is how the deadly logic of extreme Unionist/Protestant Supremacy in Northern Ireland works: if a Catholic cannot get the top job in England, therefore, Catholics are inferior, and Protestants in Northern Ireland are free to treat them as inferior—all backed up by the British constitution, the foundation stone of the Royal Family, and the beauty, magnificence, and splendor of the King Charles Coronation!
(And, of course, it's not just in Northern Ireland that such deadly logic works—it works the same way where there is anti-Black racism, anti-Semitism, anti-Islam, etc., etc. Racism and sectarianism
are the twin evils of the world.)
—Fr. McManus on King Charles himself—
“Over the years, I’ve had a favorable impression of Prince Charles as a person. I thought of him as a decent, empathetic young man, self-effacing, and likable. I think it has been clear over the years that he was uncomfortable with England’s history of anti-Catholicism, since the English Reformation, as distinct from the European/Luther Reformation. And, I think he might be the King to abolish State-sponsored, legal, and institutionalized anti-Catholicism.
So, my raising of all this issue is no personal disrespect to the new King Charles. Indeed, in my Memoirs: My American Struggle for Justice in Northern Ireland, I write:
‘I knew Bobby Sands was going to die. Twelve days before his death, I embarked on my own hunger strike right outside the British Embassy. Because I did not hold any poster, and because I was by myself, I did not have to remain at the mandatory distance of five hundred yards. Prince Charles was staying at the Embassy, and each time he left in the car, he had to drive right past me. I could see him peering out of the darkened car windows—not without empathy, or so I thought. Certainly, he was not glaring with hostility.' (Pages 183-184).
That was my impression 42 years ago of Prince Charles, and it has essentially remained unchanged.
May 25, 2023
Text of anti-Catholic oath sworn by King Charles
“I Charles do solemnly and sincerely in the presence of God profess, testify, and declare that I am a faithful Protestant and that I will, according to the true intent of the enactments which secure the Protestant succession to the Throne, uphold, and maintain the said enactments to the best of my powers according to law.”
"Protestant succession to the Throne," as explained below, is code for one, and only one thing: NO CATHOLIC ALLOWED IN BRITISH CONSTITUTION TO BE MONARCH.
Thursday, May 25, 2023
Fr. Sean McManus, author of My American Struggle for Justice in Northern Ireland. 2023 U.S.A. Re-print.(Amazon). The unique, authoritative classic on his struggle—against all odds—to get the U.S. Congress to stand up for justice and peace in Ireland …No other book tells or can tell this story. Click link—
http://www.irishnationalcaucus.org/20034-2/
Bio: Father Sean McManus, Northern Ireland Troubles Expert.
202-544-0568.
Email —Sean@IrishNational Caucus.org
Fr. Sean McManus (79) is the leading expert in America on The Troubles in Northern Ireland where he was born and reared. He is Founder/President of the Capitol Hill-based Irish National Caucus and Chief Judge of the World Peace Prize.
He studied and trained for the priesthood in Britain. In 1972, Church and State exiled him from Britain to the U.S. because he refused to be silent about injustice in Northern Ireland.
In 1974, he founded the Irish National Caucus (IrishNationalCaucus.org): “Thus Mc Manus became Britain’s nemesis in America, the driving force that would eventually erode Britain’s influence within the U.S. Government.” (American Policy and Northern Ireland: A Saga of Peacebuilding. Professor Joseph E. Thompson. 2001).
Fr. Mc Manus has been a lone voice in pointing out that the root cause of anti-Catholicism in Northern Ireland is the British constitution which enshrines, sanctions, and mandates appalling and deadly anti-Catholicism. (However, he seems to have raised consciousness in Britain itself where a number of people like Tony Blair and newspapers like The Guardian have condemned the
State-sponsored anti-Catholicism over the past twenty to thirty years).
One need only quote the Web Site of the British Royal Family to see
this appalling discrimination and bigotry officially and unequivocally declared and explained, without the slightest hint of embarrassment or shame:
“The basis for the succession[to the Throne] was determined in the constitutional developments of the seventeenth century, which culminated in the Bill of Rights (1689) and the Act of Settlement (1701). The Act laid down that only Protestants… are eligible to succeed [to the Throne]. Subsequent Acts have confirmed this.
Parliament, under the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement, also laid down various conditions which the Sovereign must meet. A Roman Catholic is specifically excluded from succession to the throne.'— https://www.royal.uk/succession
Furthermore, the Bill of Rights 1689 states that should monarchs convert to Roman Catholicism, they immediately and automatically cease to be monarchs (“be forever incapable to inherit, possess, or enjoy the Crown”) and that the subjects are absolved from their allegiance.
All this abhorrent and disgraceful hatred would be like having a clause in the American Constitution that prohibits a Black being President. Imagine how that would have sanctioned, promoted, and incited deadly White supremacy… Well, that’s what England’s rule and laws have done in Northern Ireland … You see this is how the deadly logic of extreme Unionist/Protestant Supremacy in Northern Ireland works: if a Catholic cannot get the top job in England, therefore, Catholics are inferior, and Protestants in Northern Ireland are free to treat them as inferior—all backed up by the British constitution, the foundation stone of the Royal Family, and the beauty, magnificence, and splendor of the King Charles Coronation!
(And, of course, it's not just in Northern Ireland that such deadly logic works—it works the same way where there is anti-Black racism, anti-Semitism, anti-Islam, etc., etc. Racism and sectarianism
are the twin evils of the world.)
—Fr. McManus on King Charles himself—
“Over the years, I’ve had a favorable impression of Prince Charles as a person. I thought of him as a decent, empathetic young man, self-effacing, and likable. I think it has been clear over the years that he was uncomfortable with England’s history of anti-Catholicism, since the English Reformation, as distinct from the European/Luther Reformation. And, I think he might be the King to abolish State-sponsored, legal, and institutionalized anti-Catholicism.
So, my raising of all this issue is no personal disrespect to the new King Charles. Indeed, in my Memoirs: My American Struggle for Justice in Northern Ireland, I write:
‘I knew Bobby Sands was going to die. Twelve days before his death, I embarked on my own hunger strike right outside the British Embassy. Because I did not hold any poster, and because I was by myself, I did not have to remain at the mandatory distance of five hundred yards. Prince Charles was staying at the Embassy, and each time he left in the car, he had to drive right past me. I could see him peering out of the darkened car windows—not without empathy, or so I thought. Certainly, he was not glaring with hostility.' (Pages 183-184).
That was my impression 42 years ago of Prince Charles, and it has essentially remained unchanged.
- BULLET POINTS ON THE IRISH ISSUE
- SINCE 1169, ENGLAND HAS DOMINATED IRELAND, ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.
- BEFORE THE ENGLISH REFORMATION (AS DISTINCT FROM LUTHER’S REFORMATION IN THE 1500s), CATHOLIC ENGLAND USED RACISM AS THE WEAPON OF CHOICE IN ITS DEADLY OPPRESSION OF IRELAND. AFTER HENRY VIII’S REFORMATION, GENOCIDAL ANTI-CATHOIICISM WAS ADDED.
- ON DECEMBER 23, 1920, THE LONDON PARLIAMENT UNILATERALLY PARTITION IRELAND, WITH THE ASSENT OF KING GEORGE V—KING CHARLES III’S GREAT-GRANDFATHER.
- AS THE CORONATION CEREMONY OF KING CHARLES HAS SHOWN TO THE WORLD, ANTI-CATHOLICISM IS THE FOUNDATION STONE OF THE ROYAL FAMILY SINCE 1701, PROHIBITING BY THE UNWRITTEN, UNCODIFIED BRITISH CONSTITUTION, A CATHOLIC FROM BEING THE MONARCH.
- AMERICANS, IN PARTICULAR, SHOULD BE APPALLED BY SUCH STATE-SPONSORED ANTI-CATOLICISM. IT WOULD BE LIKE HAVING A CLAUSE IN THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTION PROHIBITING A BLACK BEING PRESIDENT.
6.
70 YEARS SINCE THE WORLD WITNESSED THIS MAJESTIC ANTI-CATHOLICISM AND STATE-SPONSORED DISCRIMINATION
June 5, 2023
IRISH CONGRESSIONAL BRIEFING
Distributed to Congress by Irish National Caucus
Before the Coronation of King Charles III, May 6, 2023, it had been 70 years (June 2, 1953) since the world witnessed the extraordinary spectacle of the English Monarch swearing an anti-Catholic oath … Solemnly swearing before God and the world to continue and uphold the appalling and hate-filled policy, since the Act of Settlement 1701, of excluding Catholics from “succeeding to the Throne.” … Vowing to fulfill the highest law in England— the foundation stone of the British Royal Family and in a real sense the foundation stone of Northern Ireland—and vowing to “specifically exclude a Catholic” (as King Charles' own website, below, explains).
… Vowing to exclude, to ban, to discriminate against, and show total disrespect not only to English Catholics but to all Catholics in the world—and, indeed, disrespect to all people of goodwill who respect international human rights. Just as all people of goodwill would rightly be appalled and insulted if there were a clause in the American Constitution specifically excluding Blacks from being the President of the USA. It would not just be Blacks in America who would be insulted, but all Blacks everywhere, and all decent people everywhere...
...Vowing to enforce State-sponsored religious bigotry and sectarianism may no longer mean much in England, but in Northern Ireland, it means everything to the significant number of Unionists/Loyalists/Protestants who still believe in Protestant Supremacy. Indeed, since the London Parliament unilaterally enacted the “Partition Act” on December 23, 1920—with the assent of King George V, great-grandfather of King Charles III—
top Unionist/Protestant leaders have reminded the British Government that their allegiance is not just to the Crown, but to Protestant succession to the Throne.
Some in England may seek an excuse in regarding this appalling anti-Catholic bigotry in the British constitution as a quaint, silly oddity from older days. But in Northern Ireland, it is not a quaint, silly little oddity, but the root cause of historic anti-Catholic programs of burning out Catholic homes, expelling Catholics from the workplace, Protestant murder gangs, and the systematic oppression of Catholics.
Now, as a public service, I again publish that document that got me censored by the Belfast Telegraph—King Charles’ own website on
"succession to the throne," which bluntly admits my charges of anti-Catholicism:
WEBSITE OF BRITISH ROYAL FAMILY
https://www.royal.uk/encyclopedia/succession
This is the official website of the British Royal Family. Written and managed by the Royal Household at Buckingham Palace; the site aims to provide an authoritative resource of information about the Monarchy and Royal Family, past and present.
The succession to the throne is regulated not only through descent but also by Parliamentary statute. The order of succession is the sequence of members of the Royal Family in the order in which they stand in line to the throne.
The basis for the succession was determined in the constitutional developments of the seventeenth century, which culminated in the Bill of Rights (1689) and the Act of Settlement (1701).
When James II fled the country in 1688, Parliament held that he had "abdicated the government" and that the throne was vacant. The throne was then offered, not to James's young son, but to his daughter Mary and her husband William of Orange, as joint rulers.
It, therefore, came to be established not only that the Sovereign rules through Parliament, but that the succession to the throne can be regulated by Parliament, and that a Sovereign can be deprived of his/her title through misgovernment. The Act of Settlement confirmed that it was for Parliament to determine the title to the throne.
The Act laid down that only Protestant descendants of Princess Sophia - the Electress of Hanover and granddaughter of James I - are eligible to succeed. Subsequent Acts have confirmed this.
Parliament, under the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement, also laid down various conditions which the Sovereign must meet. A Roman Catholic is specifically excluded from succession to the throne.
The Sovereign must, in addition, be in communion with the Church of England and must swear to preserve the established Church of England and the established Church of Scotland. The Sovereign must also promise to uphold the Protestant succession.
The Succession to the Crown Act (2013) amended the provisions of the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement to end the system of male primogeniture, under which a younger son can displace an elder daughter in the line of succession. The Act applies to those born after 28 October 2011. The Act also ended the provisions by which those who marry Roman Catholics are disqualified from the line of succession. The changes came into force in all sixteen Realms in March 2015.
June 5, 2023
IRISH CONGRESSIONAL BRIEFING
Distributed to Congress by Irish National Caucus
Before the Coronation of King Charles III, May 6, 2023, it had been 70 years (June 2, 1953) since the world witnessed the extraordinary spectacle of the English Monarch swearing an anti-Catholic oath … Solemnly swearing before God and the world to continue and uphold the appalling and hate-filled policy, since the Act of Settlement 1701, of excluding Catholics from “succeeding to the Throne.” … Vowing to fulfill the highest law in England— the foundation stone of the British Royal Family and in a real sense the foundation stone of Northern Ireland—and vowing to “specifically exclude a Catholic” (as King Charles' own website, below, explains).
… Vowing to exclude, to ban, to discriminate against, and show total disrespect not only to English Catholics but to all Catholics in the world—and, indeed, disrespect to all people of goodwill who respect international human rights. Just as all people of goodwill would rightly be appalled and insulted if there were a clause in the American Constitution specifically excluding Blacks from being the President of the USA. It would not just be Blacks in America who would be insulted, but all Blacks everywhere, and all decent people everywhere...
...Vowing to enforce State-sponsored religious bigotry and sectarianism may no longer mean much in England, but in Northern Ireland, it means everything to the significant number of Unionists/Loyalists/Protestants who still believe in Protestant Supremacy. Indeed, since the London Parliament unilaterally enacted the “Partition Act” on December 23, 1920—with the assent of King George V, great-grandfather of King Charles III—
top Unionist/Protestant leaders have reminded the British Government that their allegiance is not just to the Crown, but to Protestant succession to the Throne.
Some in England may seek an excuse in regarding this appalling anti-Catholic bigotry in the British constitution as a quaint, silly oddity from older days. But in Northern Ireland, it is not a quaint, silly little oddity, but the root cause of historic anti-Catholic programs of burning out Catholic homes, expelling Catholics from the workplace, Protestant murder gangs, and the systematic oppression of Catholics.
Now, as a public service, I again publish that document that got me censored by the Belfast Telegraph—King Charles’ own website on
"succession to the throne," which bluntly admits my charges of anti-Catholicism:
WEBSITE OF BRITISH ROYAL FAMILY
https://www.royal.uk/encyclopedia/succession
This is the official website of the British Royal Family. Written and managed by the Royal Household at Buckingham Palace; the site aims to provide an authoritative resource of information about the Monarchy and Royal Family, past and present.
The succession to the throne is regulated not only through descent but also by Parliamentary statute. The order of succession is the sequence of members of the Royal Family in the order in which they stand in line to the throne.
The basis for the succession was determined in the constitutional developments of the seventeenth century, which culminated in the Bill of Rights (1689) and the Act of Settlement (1701).
When James II fled the country in 1688, Parliament held that he had "abdicated the government" and that the throne was vacant. The throne was then offered, not to James's young son, but to his daughter Mary and her husband William of Orange, as joint rulers.
It, therefore, came to be established not only that the Sovereign rules through Parliament, but that the succession to the throne can be regulated by Parliament, and that a Sovereign can be deprived of his/her title through misgovernment. The Act of Settlement confirmed that it was for Parliament to determine the title to the throne.
The Act laid down that only Protestant descendants of Princess Sophia - the Electress of Hanover and granddaughter of James I - are eligible to succeed. Subsequent Acts have confirmed this.
Parliament, under the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement, also laid down various conditions which the Sovereign must meet. A Roman Catholic is specifically excluded from succession to the throne.
The Sovereign must, in addition, be in communion with the Church of England and must swear to preserve the established Church of England and the established Church of Scotland. The Sovereign must also promise to uphold the Protestant succession.
The Succession to the Crown Act (2013) amended the provisions of the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement to end the system of male primogeniture, under which a younger son can displace an elder daughter in the line of succession. The Act applies to those born after 28 October 2011. The Act also ended the provisions by which those who marry Roman Catholics are disqualified from the line of succession. The changes came into force in all sixteen Realms in March 2015.
7.
TIME ORAGE ORDER DISTANCED ITSELF FROM SLAVER KING BILLY
June 23, 2023
IRISH CONGRESSIONAL BRIEFING
Distributed to Congress by Irish National Caucus
“The Orange Order (think the White Citizens’ Council, in the Deep South, USA, 1954-79) is the very personification, and proudly so, of Protestant Supremacy in Northern Ireland. They would have been cheering King Charles’ recent very public anti-Catholic Coronation Oath. The Orange Order, like other supremacist Unionist leaders, have always warned the London Parliament and the Monarch of England that their allegiance is not just to The Crown but to Protestant Succession to The Throne … And, King Charles swore the oath to keep Catholics from ever inheriting The Throne, which condoned and justified Orange bigotry and bitter anti-Catholicism.”
--Fr. Sean McManus
Time Orange Order distanced itself from slaver King Billy
Given his links to slave trading, should King William be commemorated quite so proudly on Orange banners and statues?
Tom Collins. Irish News. Belfast. Friday, June 23, 2023.
EXCERPT …
The Grand Orange Lodge of Ireland (good to know it will not have to rebrand when the country is once again united) says it is committed to protecting the principles of William’s Glorious Revolution “which enshrined civil and religious liberty for all”.
The phrase ‘for all’ is used without irony. But Order membership is restricted to adult males. Women and children have their own associations, and Catholics need not apply.
The Orange Order says its core values include “religious tolerance and respect”. You can make your own mind up on that.
Like the members of the cult who can see only good in Boris Johnson, King Billy’s status as the embodiment of “civil and religious liberty for all” is visible only to those who believe the pope is the anti-Christ and that All Kinds of Everything is a republican anthem.
You can’t blame King Billy for the Orange Order, he was dead 90 years before it was founded. But his reputation as a champion for liberty is about to take another knock.
A year before the Battle of the Boyne, William III was gifted shares in the Royal African Company – thousands of men, women, and children (186,827 to be precise) were seized by the company and enslaved. It operated under a royal charter, and King Billy was the company’s governor.
Next week, on July 1, his descendent King Willem-Alexander is expected to make a formal apology for the Dutch royal house’s role in the slave trade. The House of Orange earned the equivalent of £800 million from the trade which was developed by William of Orange.
A further reckoning is to come when a UK study, supported by William’s successor King Charles, is completed.
Unlike other port cities, Belfast rejected the slave trade. But slavery played a significant role in enriching its sister city, Glasgow. The city council there has commissioned a study to look at its slaving past.
And in critics’ sights is a statue of King Billy near Glasgow’s medieval cathedral. The lines of a battle between those who believe the statue should be removed, and the Orange Order in Scotland, are already being mapped out.
Grand Master Jim McHarg told The Times this week: “It is news to me that King William was involved in the slave trade.” News indeed.
The plinth on King Billy’s statue says he saved Europe from the ‘yoke of slavery intended by the French'. That is no consolation to the hundreds of thousands he and his minions enslaved.
Or, to put it another way, he stood for civil and religious liberty for all, but only if you are European, white, and Protestant.
Never mind the royals, it’s time the Orange Order distanced itself from the slaver king and genuinely embraced liberty ‘for all.'
June 23, 2023
IRISH CONGRESSIONAL BRIEFING
Distributed to Congress by Irish National Caucus
“The Orange Order (think the White Citizens’ Council, in the Deep South, USA, 1954-79) is the very personification, and proudly so, of Protestant Supremacy in Northern Ireland. They would have been cheering King Charles’ recent very public anti-Catholic Coronation Oath. The Orange Order, like other supremacist Unionist leaders, have always warned the London Parliament and the Monarch of England that their allegiance is not just to The Crown but to Protestant Succession to The Throne … And, King Charles swore the oath to keep Catholics from ever inheriting The Throne, which condoned and justified Orange bigotry and bitter anti-Catholicism.”
--Fr. Sean McManus
Time Orange Order distanced itself from slaver King Billy
Given his links to slave trading, should King William be commemorated quite so proudly on Orange banners and statues?
Tom Collins. Irish News. Belfast. Friday, June 23, 2023.
EXCERPT …
The Grand Orange Lodge of Ireland (good to know it will not have to rebrand when the country is once again united) says it is committed to protecting the principles of William’s Glorious Revolution “which enshrined civil and religious liberty for all”.
The phrase ‘for all’ is used without irony. But Order membership is restricted to adult males. Women and children have their own associations, and Catholics need not apply.
The Orange Order says its core values include “religious tolerance and respect”. You can make your own mind up on that.
Like the members of the cult who can see only good in Boris Johnson, King Billy’s status as the embodiment of “civil and religious liberty for all” is visible only to those who believe the pope is the anti-Christ and that All Kinds of Everything is a republican anthem.
You can’t blame King Billy for the Orange Order, he was dead 90 years before it was founded. But his reputation as a champion for liberty is about to take another knock.
A year before the Battle of the Boyne, William III was gifted shares in the Royal African Company – thousands of men, women, and children (186,827 to be precise) were seized by the company and enslaved. It operated under a royal charter, and King Billy was the company’s governor.
Next week, on July 1, his descendent King Willem-Alexander is expected to make a formal apology for the Dutch royal house’s role in the slave trade. The House of Orange earned the equivalent of £800 million from the trade which was developed by William of Orange.
A further reckoning is to come when a UK study, supported by William’s successor King Charles, is completed.
Unlike other port cities, Belfast rejected the slave trade. But slavery played a significant role in enriching its sister city, Glasgow. The city council there has commissioned a study to look at its slaving past.
And in critics’ sights is a statue of King Billy near Glasgow’s medieval cathedral. The lines of a battle between those who believe the statue should be removed, and the Orange Order in Scotland, are already being mapped out.
Grand Master Jim McHarg told The Times this week: “It is news to me that King William was involved in the slave trade.” News indeed.
The plinth on King Billy’s statue says he saved Europe from the ‘yoke of slavery intended by the French'. That is no consolation to the hundreds of thousands he and his minions enslaved.
Or, to put it another way, he stood for civil and religious liberty for all, but only if you are European, white, and Protestant.
Never mind the royals, it’s time the Orange Order distanced itself from the slaver king and genuinely embraced liberty ‘for all.'
8.
LIKE KING CHARLES III, SIR JEFFREY DONALDSON DOES NOT WANT A CATHOLIC IN THE TOP JOB.
July 3, 2023
IRISH CONGRESSIONAL BRIEFING
Distributed to Congress by Irish National Caucus
“The column below by the former Editor of the Irish News will help Members of Congress to understand the fake crisis engineered
by the DUP in Northern Ireland (the Six Counties of Ireland still ruled by England).
Everyone in all of Ireland knows full well why the DUP does not want to go back into the Stormont Government—because that would mean accepting a Sinn Fein leader, Michelle O’Neill, as the “First Minister” (as she is, because Sinn Fein is the largest party in the North) and Donaldson would have to accept the title “Deputy Minister.”… And that is just unthinkable to the significant section Unionist/Protestant community that are supremacist in their thinking. (Even though there is no constitutional difference between the powers of the First and Deputy Minister).
Furthermore, did not King Charles III recently before God and the entire world proudly swear a sacred oath— absolutely required by the British Constitution —to ensure “Protestant succession to The Throne”?
So, Sir Jeffrey Donaldson, is simply saying: “If a Catholic cannot get the top job in England, why should a Catholic be seen to get the top job in Northern Ireland?” … So, you see, as always, the buck stops with the English Monarch and the London Parliament.” … Just as it did on December 23, 1920, when the London Parliament unilaterally enacted the “Partition Act” —with the assent of King George V, King Charles’ great grandfather."—Fr. Sean McManus.
Delusional Donaldson just keeps on digging
July 3, 2023
IRISH CONGRESSIONAL BRIEFING
Distributed to Congress by Irish National Caucus
“The column below by the former Editor of the Irish News will help Members of Congress to understand the fake crisis engineered
by the DUP in Northern Ireland (the Six Counties of Ireland still ruled by England).
Everyone in all of Ireland knows full well why the DUP does not want to go back into the Stormont Government—because that would mean accepting a Sinn Fein leader, Michelle O’Neill, as the “First Minister” (as she is, because Sinn Fein is the largest party in the North) and Donaldson would have to accept the title “Deputy Minister.”… And that is just unthinkable to the significant section Unionist/Protestant community that are supremacist in their thinking. (Even though there is no constitutional difference between the powers of the First and Deputy Minister).
Furthermore, did not King Charles III recently before God and the entire world proudly swear a sacred oath— absolutely required by the British Constitution —to ensure “Protestant succession to The Throne”?
So, Sir Jeffrey Donaldson, is simply saying: “If a Catholic cannot get the top job in England, why should a Catholic be seen to get the top job in Northern Ireland?” … So, you see, as always, the buck stops with the English Monarch and the London Parliament.” … Just as it did on December 23, 1920, when the London Parliament unilaterally enacted the “Partition Act” —with the assent of King George V, King Charles’ great grandfather."—Fr. Sean McManus.
Delusional Donaldson just keeps on digging
Tom Collins. Irish News. Belfast. Friday, June 30, 2023.
Well, you’ve got to admire his industry. We are told one of the problems with the economy is sluggish productivity. But you cannot lay that accusation at the door of Jeffrey Donaldson.
He’s been digging himself into a hole for years, and the wee man just can’t stop digging. We know he’s still at it, because you can see the pile of dirt on the surface, and from time to time his falsetto rises from the depths.
Donaldson has been digging so long, he must be about to come out on the other side of the world. The people of Papatowai, Belfast’s antipodal city, are in for a treat when he emerges from his hole, dusts himself down, dons his Orange sash and does the haka.
Inside his tunnel, Donaldson has created his own virtual reality world – tunnel vision, if you like. In this world, the DUP is still the dominant force in our politics, able to dictate the political direction of Northern Ireland, able to tell prime ministers what they can and cannot do, able to enforce partition and thwart the machinations of the EU.
The voices inside his head are the voices which once subjugated this place: loyalist paramilitaries who continue to terrorize their own communities and threaten others; the loyal orders with their sectarianism cloaked in mumbo-jumbo about civil and religious liberty for all; and the unelected and unelectable who pump out bile on the airwaves on a daily basis.
Sadly, there doesn’t seem to be anyone willing or able to take him to one side and tell him the game is up.
The DUP may not have moved on. But the country has. Profound changes in demographics are making their presence felt. Northern Ireland may have been established as a gerrymandered Protestant statelet, but it is that no more. It’s not just that Catholics now are in the majority, it’s also the fact that many from a Protestant and unionist background – particularly the younger generation – want to move on from bully-boy politics.
This electorate is out of sympathy too with the deep social conservatism expressed by DUP politicians incapable of separating their fundamentalist beliefs from their responsibility to protect the rights of all. The DUP would make second-class citizens of nationalists, women, people from the LGBTQ+ community, and those of us who believe that dinosaurs walked the earth 100 million years ago.
Donaldson was at it again this week. From the depths of his pit came more guff about the Framework and the path to a restored power-sharing executive at Stormont.
He was speaking at the launch of a naïve report on the Northern Ireland Protocol and Windsor Framework from the Centre for Brexit Policy. This is a self-appointed think tank comprised of delusional Brexiteers who propose simplistic solutions to complex problem
Backing the report, Donaldson said: “We have put forward proposals to the government that are designed to address our continuing concerns about key elements of the Windsor Framework… blah, blah, blah.”
The drift of the report is well summed up in the headline of its press release. “The Windsor Framework has failed – ending NI problems requires moving trade border back to Irish mainland.”
The DUP fix is to do what it always wanted to do. Stick a border around the six counties, and pretend the Good Friday Agreement never existed.
As Superintendent Ted Hastings might say: “Jesus, Mary, Joseph, and the wee donkey.”
What Donaldson ignores is that the Windsor Framework has been endorsed by an overwhelming number of MPs in the parliament he calls sovereign. It resolves the tangled mess resulting from his party’s support for a hard Brexit, and it puts the UK in a much better position to mitigate the damage done to its economy by this reckless and foolhardy act of national self-harm.
Donaldson believes in the United Kingdom only when it suits him.
That is something the Secretary of State would do well to think about as he considers how to chart a way forward. Yes, he wants the DUP back in the Executive, yes he wants local politicians making tough decisions about health, education, and the economy, yes he wants political stability, and all that flows from it. We all do.
But that should not be at the price of kowtowing to a failed political party that is in denial about its waning political clout and is increasingly distanced from the mass of people in these islands. Donaldson doesn’t deserve a ladder; he needs to climb out of the hole by himself.
9.
Fourth of July Thoughts on American Freedom, and England’s Denial of Freedom, as Exemplified by King Charles III’s anti-Catholic Coronation Oath to Exclude Catholics
By Fr. Sean McManus
July 4, 2023
I came to America on October 2, 1972. I was deeply impressed by many things in this great country (while being aware “a more perfect union” was a still work in progress).
I was particularly impressed by the “Establishment Clause” of the First Amendment of the Constitution that rejects an Established Church. The Framers of the Constitution knew from the English example that an Established Church would invariably mean State-sponsored discrimination and sectarianism.
By Fr. Sean McManus
July 4, 2023
I came to America on October 2, 1972. I was deeply impressed by many things in this great country (while being aware “a more perfect union” was a still work in progress).
I was particularly impressed by the “Establishment Clause” of the First Amendment of the Constitution that rejects an Established Church. The Framers of the Constitution knew from the English example that an Established Church would invariably mean State-sponsored discrimination and sectarianism.
Before the Coronation of King Charles III, May 6, 2023, it had been 70 years (June 2, 1953) since the world witnessed the extraordinary and appalling spectacle of the English Monarch swearing an anti-Catholic oath … Solemnly, swearing before God and the world to continue and uphold the hate-filled policy, since the Bill of Rights 1689 (the brazen hypocrisy of such a title of a Bill that by name excludes Catholics) and the Act of Settlement 1701, of explicitly excluding Catholics from “succeeding to the Throne.” … Vowing to fulfill the highest law in England— the foundation stone of the British Royal Family and in a real sense the foundation stone of Northern Ireland—and vowing to “specifically exclude a Catholic” (as King Charles' own website explains).
Like if Constitution excluded Black and Jews
Vowing to exclude, to ban, to discriminate against, and show total disrespect not only to English Catholics but to all Catholics in the world—and, indeed, disrespect to all people of goodwill who respect international human rights. Just as all people of goodwill would rightly be appalled and insulted if there were a clause in the American Constitution specifically excluding Blacks or Jewish-Americans from being the President of the USA. It would not just be Blacks in America or Jewish-Americans who would be insulted, but all Blacks and Jews everywhere, and all decent people everywhere.
And would Blacks and Jews be expected to attend the Inauguration of a President of the United States in such circumstances, in which the President swears an oath before God and the entire world to proudly stop American Blacks and Jews-Americans ever being President of the United States?
Vowing to enforce State-sponsored religious bigotry and sectarianism may no longer mean much in England, but in Northern Ireland, it means everything to the significant number of Unionists/Protestants who still believe in Protestant Supremacy. Indeed, since the London Parliament unilaterally enacted the “Partition Act” on December 23, 1920—with the assent of King George V, great-grandfather of King Charles III—top Unionist/Protestant leaders have reminded the British Government that their allegiance is not just to the Crown, but to Protestant succession to the Throne.
Some in England may seek an excuse in regarding this appalling anti-Catholic bigotry in the British constitution as a quaint, silly oddity from older days. But in Northern Ireland, it is not a quaint, silly little oddity, but the root cause of historic anti-Catholic programs of burning out Catholic homes, expelling Catholics from the workplace, Protestant murder gangs, and the systematic oppression of Catholics. After all, that was precisely why the artificial, undemocratic mini-State of Northern Ireland was set up on a racist and sectarian foundation: ensure Protestant Supremacy, thereby maintaining England’s foothold in the Six Counties.
And would Blacks and Jews be expected to attend the Inauguration of a President of the United States in such circumstances, in which the President swears an oath before God and the entire world to proudly stop American Blacks and Jews-Americans ever being President of the United States?
Vowing to enforce State-sponsored religious bigotry and sectarianism may no longer mean much in England, but in Northern Ireland, it means everything to the significant number of Unionists/Protestants who still believe in Protestant Supremacy. Indeed, since the London Parliament unilaterally enacted the “Partition Act” on December 23, 1920—with the assent of King George V, great-grandfather of King Charles III—top Unionist/Protestant leaders have reminded the British Government that their allegiance is not just to the Crown, but to Protestant succession to the Throne.
Some in England may seek an excuse in regarding this appalling anti-Catholic bigotry in the British constitution as a quaint, silly oddity from older days. But in Northern Ireland, it is not a quaint, silly little oddity, but the root cause of historic anti-Catholic programs of burning out Catholic homes, expelling Catholics from the workplace, Protestant murder gangs, and the systematic oppression of Catholics. After all, that was precisely why the artificial, undemocratic mini-State of Northern Ireland was set up on a racist and sectarian foundation: ensure Protestant Supremacy, thereby maintaining England’s foothold in the Six Counties.
As a Public Service
Now, as a public service, I again quote the document that got me censored by the Belfast Telegraph—King Charles’ own website on “succession to the throne," which bluntly admits my charges of anti-Catholicism:
“The Act [of Settlement 1701] laid down that only Protestant descendants of Princess Sophia … are eligible to succeed. Subsequent Acts have confirmed this. Parliament, under the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement, also laid down various conditions which the Sovereign must meet. A Roman Catholic is specifically excluded from succession to the throne. The Sovereign must, in addition, be in communion with the Church of England and must swear to preserve the established Church of England and the established Church of Scotland. The Sovereign must also promise to uphold the Protestant succession.”— https://www.royal.uk/encyclopedia/succession
“Governor of the Anglican Church,” no excuse
All people of goodwill should be outraged by England’s appalling and hate-filled anti-Catholicism and State-sponsored discrimination and bigotry.
The wisdom and fairness of the First Amendment also dismisses the usual old canard given to excuse the anti-Catholic hatred and bigotry of the British constitution—that the Monarch cannot be Catholic because the Monarch is the Governor of the Anglican Church. That is not an excuse, but proof that Church and State should be separate.
And, by the way, the other provision in the First Amendment is equally applicable here—the Free Exercise of Religion. Because you see, the Bill of Rights 1689, states that should monarchs convert to Roman Catholicism, they immediately and automatically cease to be monarchs (“be forever incapable to inherit, possess, or enjoy the Crown”) and that the subjects are absolved from their allegiance.
I believe King Charles should have the right to religious freedom, and should not lose the Crown (whatever one’s views of the Crown) if he were to become Catholic. Just like I believe that President Biden should not lose the Presidency were he to become Protestant. And, if there were a clause in the Irish Constitution excluding the President of Ireland being Protestant, I would be the very first to oppose it … It’s not complicated—it's basic decency.
This appalling anti-Catholic hatred and bigotry is not just the responsibility of the Royal Family but for the British Parliament. The King Charles website (https://www.royal.uk/) declares:
“It, therefore, came to be established not only that the Sovereign rules through Parliament, but that the succession to the throne can be regulated by Parliament, and that a Sovereign can be deprived of his/her title through misgovernment. The Act of Settlement confirmed that it was for Parliament to determine the title to the throne.” So, the British Parliament is totally also responsible for this
shameful, criminal, State-sponsored anti-Catholic hatred and vile bigotry.
Complicity of Church of England
But the Coronation also laid bare the complicity of the Church of England in this great sin of Catholic exclusion and demonization.
Again, the Royal Family website helpfully outlines the role of the Church of England and other participating Church Ministers in the Coronation in its “The Coronation Service - Order of Service”—
“Today’s service draws on that long tradition, set once again within the context of the Eucharist, which is the defining act of worship for the Church universal.”
Therefore, the Coronation is not just civic ceremony but a religious one… And exclusion and bigotry in the context of the Eucharist is particularly shocking, if not sacrilegious and blasphemous.
How can the Church of England and the other Ministers who played an active role in administering the Anti-Catholic Coronation Oath possibly justify their action because the Eucharist is meant to be “ a sacrament of love, a sign of unity, a bond of charity.” … Yet, the very law—the highest law in England and in the British constitution—which governs the Coronation, brazenly, proudly, and by name excludes Catholics—the oldest and largest Christian faith in the history of the world?
Again, the Royal Family website helpfully outlines the role of the Church of England and other participating Church Ministers in the Coronation in its “The Coronation Service - Order of Service”—
“Today’s service draws on that long tradition, set once again within the context of the Eucharist, which is the defining act of worship for the Church universal.”
Therefore, the Coronation is not just civic ceremony but a religious one… And exclusion and bigotry in the context of the Eucharist is particularly shocking, if not sacrilegious and blasphemous.
How can the Church of England and the other Ministers who played an active role in administering the Anti-Catholic Coronation Oath possibly justify their action because the Eucharist is meant to be “ a sacrament of love, a sign of unity, a bond of charity.” … Yet, the very law—the highest law in England and in the British constitution—which governs the Coronation, brazenly, proudly, and by name excludes Catholics—the oldest and largest Christian faith in the history of the world?
God never gave Ireland to England
Finally, the script for administering the Anti-Catholic oath seems to tacitly condone the awful history of England’s colonialism and the discredited blasphemy of the “divine right of Kings.” Just one example: The Anglican Archbishop says: “WILL you solemnly promise and swear to govern the Peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland…” and “BE your head anointed with holy oil, …so may you be anointed, blessed, and consecrated King over the peoples, whom the Lord your God has given you to rule and govern.”
Well, Archbishop, God never gave Ireland, or any part thereof, to any King of England—nor, indeed, did God give any country in the British Empire to England. England stole it all by international terrorism, racism, sectarianism, genocide, socially engineered famines, rape, and plunder.
God bless America and God save Ireland.
10.
ANTI-CATHOLICISM: THE ENDURING PATHOLOGY AND BIGOTRY OF THE ENGLISH MONARCHY.
July 10, 2023
KING CHARLES’ WEBSITE EXPLAINS ENGLAND’S STATE-SPONSORED ANTI-CATHOLICISM— AND WITHOUT EMBARRASSMENT OR SHAME. OR MAYBE WITH (WHICH WOULD BE EVEN WORSE) BLITHE INDIFFERENCE.
“Parliament, under the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement, also laid down various conditions which the Sovereign must meet. A Roman Catholic is specifically excluded from succession to the throne.”
Website of British Royal Family. https://www.royal.uk/encyclopedia/succession
Text of anti-Catholic oath sworn by King Charles
“I Charles do solemnly and sincerely in the presence of God profess, testify, and declare that I am a faithful Protestant and that I will, according to the true intent of the enactments which secure the Protestant succession to the Throne, uphold, and maintain the said enactments to the best of my powers according to law.”
"Protestant succession to the Throne," is code for one, and only one thing: no Catholic allowed in British constitution to be Monarch. Period.
The Guardian, London, in a 2001 Editorial described this as “the basis for the modern-day monarchy--an act of parliament which explicitly discriminates against Catholics.” … And which Tony Blair, God bless him, called when no longer Prime Minister, “plainly discriminatory.”
ANTI-CATHOLICISM: THE ENDURING PATHOLOGY OF THE ENGLISH MONARCHY, THE BRITISH CONSTITUTION, BRITISH PARLIAMENT, AND THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND, WHICH ADMINISTERED THE OATH … ALL DISPLAYED IN THE CORONATION OF KING CHARLES III.
… AND ALL IGNORED (AND, THEREFORE, CONDONED) BY THE AMERICAN, BRITISH, AND IRISH MEDIA.
HOW IS THAT POSSIBLE? IF THE KING OF ENGLAND SWORE AN OATH BEFORE GOD AND THE WORLD (IN THE CONTEXT OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST) TO EXCLUDE JEWS OR BLACKS WOULD THE MEDIA CONDONE IT? WOULD DECENT PEOPLE BE SILENT?
THE IRISH NATIONAL CAUCUS WOULD BE THE FIRST TO CONDEMN IT.
AND IF THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTION DECLARED A BLACK OR A JEW COULD NOT BE PRESIDENT, THE IRISH NATIONAL CAUCUS WOULD BE THE FIRST TO OPPOSE IT.
WHY THE DEAFENING SILENCE ABOUT THE EXCLUSION OF CATHOLICS—THE OLDEST AND LARGEST CHRISTIAN FAITH ON EARTH?
And let nobody even think of using the usual old canard given to excuse the anti-Catholic hatred and bigotry of the British constitution—that the Monarch cannot be Catholic because the Monarch is the Governor of the Anglican Church. That is not an excuse, but proof that Church and State should be separate, as in the First Amendment of the American Constitution.
July 10, 2023
KING CHARLES’ WEBSITE EXPLAINS ENGLAND’S STATE-SPONSORED ANTI-CATHOLICISM— AND WITHOUT EMBARRASSMENT OR SHAME. OR MAYBE WITH (WHICH WOULD BE EVEN WORSE) BLITHE INDIFFERENCE.
“Parliament, under the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement, also laid down various conditions which the Sovereign must meet. A Roman Catholic is specifically excluded from succession to the throne.”
Website of British Royal Family. https://www.royal.uk/encyclopedia/succession
Text of anti-Catholic oath sworn by King Charles
“I Charles do solemnly and sincerely in the presence of God profess, testify, and declare that I am a faithful Protestant and that I will, according to the true intent of the enactments which secure the Protestant succession to the Throne, uphold, and maintain the said enactments to the best of my powers according to law.”
"Protestant succession to the Throne," is code for one, and only one thing: no Catholic allowed in British constitution to be Monarch. Period.
The Guardian, London, in a 2001 Editorial described this as “the basis for the modern-day monarchy--an act of parliament which explicitly discriminates against Catholics.” … And which Tony Blair, God bless him, called when no longer Prime Minister, “plainly discriminatory.”
ANTI-CATHOLICISM: THE ENDURING PATHOLOGY OF THE ENGLISH MONARCHY, THE BRITISH CONSTITUTION, BRITISH PARLIAMENT, AND THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND, WHICH ADMINISTERED THE OATH … ALL DISPLAYED IN THE CORONATION OF KING CHARLES III.
… AND ALL IGNORED (AND, THEREFORE, CONDONED) BY THE AMERICAN, BRITISH, AND IRISH MEDIA.
HOW IS THAT POSSIBLE? IF THE KING OF ENGLAND SWORE AN OATH BEFORE GOD AND THE WORLD (IN THE CONTEXT OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST) TO EXCLUDE JEWS OR BLACKS WOULD THE MEDIA CONDONE IT? WOULD DECENT PEOPLE BE SILENT?
THE IRISH NATIONAL CAUCUS WOULD BE THE FIRST TO CONDEMN IT.
AND IF THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTION DECLARED A BLACK OR A JEW COULD NOT BE PRESIDENT, THE IRISH NATIONAL CAUCUS WOULD BE THE FIRST TO OPPOSE IT.
WHY THE DEAFENING SILENCE ABOUT THE EXCLUSION OF CATHOLICS—THE OLDEST AND LARGEST CHRISTIAN FAITH ON EARTH?
And let nobody even think of using the usual old canard given to excuse the anti-Catholic hatred and bigotry of the British constitution—that the Monarch cannot be Catholic because the Monarch is the Governor of the Anglican Church. That is not an excuse, but proof that Church and State should be separate, as in the First Amendment of the American Constitution.
11.
IRISH CONGRESSIONAL BRIEFING
Distributed to Congress by Irish National Caucus
July 12, 2023
“The attached Editorial by the Irish News on the Orange Order is important reading.
The Orange Order is an anti-Catholic, Protestant Supremacist Organization. It has resisted every effort to remove injustices against Catholics. It absolutely supports the anti-Catholic and bigoted Coronation Oath sworn by King Charles as required by the British constitution explicitly excluding Catholics from the Throne (i.e., “Protestant succession to the Throne).
The Orange Order not surprisingly reasons: “If King Charles and the British constitution do not accept Catholics as equals, why should the Orange Order? … So, as always, the buck stops with the King or Queen of England, the British constitution, and the British Parliament. Who can disagree with that?
—Fr. Sean McManus.
Why is the Orange Order not demanding the DUP return to Stormont?
Irish News Editorial. Belfast. Wednesday, July 12, 2023.
Although its influence is greatly diminished and all available evidence suggests its aging membership is dwindling, the Orange Order still feels it should be able to dictate the political direction of The North [Northern Ireland].
At each of the 18 demonstration fields to which Orangemen and their bands will march to mark the Twelfth, three resolutions handed down by the central Grand Orange Lodge will be read. By tradition, these relate to faith, loyalty, and the state.
This year's resolution about the state criticizes the NI Protocol and Windsor Framework because they "do not satisfactorily address our concerns that Northern Ireland's place in the United Kingdom has been diminished".
It goes on to bewail "unsatisfactory treatment" by the EU and "sadly by our own government". Unionism needs to be more united, says the Order. It demands "greater cooperation, strategy, and vision amongst political unionism", an aspiration that will seem either hopelessly optimistic or worryingly naïve to observers of recent examples of unionist cooperation, strategy, and vision.
A glaring omission from the resolution is an acknowledgment that it was political unionism, in the form of the DUP which found itself in thrall to the charlatan Boris Johnson, which facilitated the hard Brexit fantasy in the first place.
There is also deep frustration that while the majority in Northern Ireland who voted 'remain' have, if reluctantly, taken a pragmatic approach by seeking to make the best of the opportunities offered by the Windsor Framework – however inferior they are to EU membership – those who engineered the very situation are still not taking responsibility.
In the resolution, the Orange Order says it will "better promote" the union's "many benefits which are enjoyed by all citizens and communities". It will be intriguing to see how the Order proposes going about this task; its recent shameful attempts, abetted by the DUP, to revive the Drumcree dispute suggest it has some way still to travel.
Though it avoids any reference to the DUP's continuing Stormont boycott and the harm this is inflicting on public services, it is worth noting that the Orange Order does not say it believes that the return of power-sharing depends on its demands around the Windsor Framework being met.
Meanwhile, the pressures for Stormont to return grow by the day. Jayne Brady, the head of the NI civil service, has told Secretary of state Chris Heaton-Harris that officials have reached the limit of what they can do in response to the punishment budget he set out in April.
Sadly, such considerations don't figure in the Orange Order's narrow set of priorities.
Distributed to Congress by Irish National Caucus
July 12, 2023
“The attached Editorial by the Irish News on the Orange Order is important reading.
The Orange Order is an anti-Catholic, Protestant Supremacist Organization. It has resisted every effort to remove injustices against Catholics. It absolutely supports the anti-Catholic and bigoted Coronation Oath sworn by King Charles as required by the British constitution explicitly excluding Catholics from the Throne (i.e., “Protestant succession to the Throne).
The Orange Order not surprisingly reasons: “If King Charles and the British constitution do not accept Catholics as equals, why should the Orange Order? … So, as always, the buck stops with the King or Queen of England, the British constitution, and the British Parliament. Who can disagree with that?
—Fr. Sean McManus.
Why is the Orange Order not demanding the DUP return to Stormont?
Irish News Editorial. Belfast. Wednesday, July 12, 2023.
Although its influence is greatly diminished and all available evidence suggests its aging membership is dwindling, the Orange Order still feels it should be able to dictate the political direction of The North [Northern Ireland].
At each of the 18 demonstration fields to which Orangemen and their bands will march to mark the Twelfth, three resolutions handed down by the central Grand Orange Lodge will be read. By tradition, these relate to faith, loyalty, and the state.
This year's resolution about the state criticizes the NI Protocol and Windsor Framework because they "do not satisfactorily address our concerns that Northern Ireland's place in the United Kingdom has been diminished".
It goes on to bewail "unsatisfactory treatment" by the EU and "sadly by our own government". Unionism needs to be more united, says the Order. It demands "greater cooperation, strategy, and vision amongst political unionism", an aspiration that will seem either hopelessly optimistic or worryingly naïve to observers of recent examples of unionist cooperation, strategy, and vision.
A glaring omission from the resolution is an acknowledgment that it was political unionism, in the form of the DUP which found itself in thrall to the charlatan Boris Johnson, which facilitated the hard Brexit fantasy in the first place.
There is also deep frustration that while the majority in Northern Ireland who voted 'remain' have, if reluctantly, taken a pragmatic approach by seeking to make the best of the opportunities offered by the Windsor Framework – however inferior they are to EU membership – those who engineered the very situation are still not taking responsibility.
In the resolution, the Orange Order says it will "better promote" the union's "many benefits which are enjoyed by all citizens and communities". It will be intriguing to see how the Order proposes going about this task; its recent shameful attempts, abetted by the DUP, to revive the Drumcree dispute suggest it has some way still to travel.
Though it avoids any reference to the DUP's continuing Stormont boycott and the harm this is inflicting on public services, it is worth noting that the Orange Order does not say it believes that the return of power-sharing depends on its demands around the Windsor Framework being met.
Meanwhile, the pressures for Stormont to return grow by the day. Jayne Brady, the head of the NI civil service, has told Secretary of state Chris Heaton-Harris that officials have reached the limit of what they can do in response to the punishment budget he set out in April.
Sadly, such considerations don't figure in the Orange Order's narrow set of priorities.
12.
“BRITISH ROYAL FAMILY EXPLAINS ENGLAND’S STATE-SPONSORED ANTI-CATHOLICISM.”
—Fr. Sean McManus.
July 13, 2023
WEBSITE OF BRITISH ROYAL FAMILY
https://www.royal.uk/encyclopedia/succession
This is the official website of the British Royal Family. Written and managed by the Royal Household at Buckingham Palace, the site aims to provide an authoritative resource of information about the Monarchy and Royal Family, past and present.
The succession to the throne is regulated not only through descent but also by Parliamentary statute. The order of succession is the sequence of members of the Royal Family in the order in which they stand in line to the throne.
The basis for the succession was determined in the constitutional developments of the seventeenth century, which culminated in the Bill of Rights (1689) and the Act of Settlement (1701).
When James II fled the country in 1688, Parliament held that he had 'abdicated the government' and that the throne was vacant. The throne was then offered, not to James's young son, but to his daughter Mary and her husband William of Orange, as joint rulers.
It, therefore, came to be established not only that the Sovereign rules through Parliament, but that the succession to the throne can be regulated by Parliament, and that a Sovereign can be deprived of his/her title through misgovernment. The Act of Settlement confirmed that it was for Parliament to determine the title to the throne.
The Act laid down that only Protestant descendants of Princess Sophia - the Electress of Hanover and granddaughter of James I - are eligible to succeed. Subsequent Acts have confirmed this.
Parliament, under the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement, also laid down various conditions which the Sovereign must meet. A Roman Catholic is specifically excluded from succession to the throne.
The Sovereign must, in addition, be in communion with the Church of England and must swear to preserve the established Church of England and the established Church of Scotland. The Sovereign must also promise to uphold the Protestant succession.
The Succession to the Crown Act (2013) amended the provisions of the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement to end the system of male primogeniture, under which a younger son can displace an elder daughter in the line of succession. The Act applies to those born after 28 October 2011. The Act also ended the provisions by which those who marry Roman Catholics are disqualified from the line of succession. The changes came into force in all sixteen Realms in March 2015.
—Fr. Sean McManus.
July 13, 2023
WEBSITE OF BRITISH ROYAL FAMILY
https://www.royal.uk/encyclopedia/succession
This is the official website of the British Royal Family. Written and managed by the Royal Household at Buckingham Palace, the site aims to provide an authoritative resource of information about the Monarchy and Royal Family, past and present.
The succession to the throne is regulated not only through descent but also by Parliamentary statute. The order of succession is the sequence of members of the Royal Family in the order in which they stand in line to the throne.
The basis for the succession was determined in the constitutional developments of the seventeenth century, which culminated in the Bill of Rights (1689) and the Act of Settlement (1701).
When James II fled the country in 1688, Parliament held that he had 'abdicated the government' and that the throne was vacant. The throne was then offered, not to James's young son, but to his daughter Mary and her husband William of Orange, as joint rulers.
It, therefore, came to be established not only that the Sovereign rules through Parliament, but that the succession to the throne can be regulated by Parliament, and that a Sovereign can be deprived of his/her title through misgovernment. The Act of Settlement confirmed that it was for Parliament to determine the title to the throne.
The Act laid down that only Protestant descendants of Princess Sophia - the Electress of Hanover and granddaughter of James I - are eligible to succeed. Subsequent Acts have confirmed this.
Parliament, under the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement, also laid down various conditions which the Sovereign must meet. A Roman Catholic is specifically excluded from succession to the throne.
The Sovereign must, in addition, be in communion with the Church of England and must swear to preserve the established Church of England and the established Church of Scotland. The Sovereign must also promise to uphold the Protestant succession.
The Succession to the Crown Act (2013) amended the provisions of the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement to end the system of male primogeniture, under which a younger son can displace an elder daughter in the line of succession. The Act applies to those born after 28 October 2011. The Act also ended the provisions by which those who marry Roman Catholics are disqualified from the line of succession. The changes came into force in all sixteen Realms in March 2015.
13.
A POX ON BOTH THEIR HOUSES
—BOTH KING BILLY AND KING JAMES
July 14, 2023
I wish Protestant King William of Orange and Catholic King James II had both lost the Battle of the Boyne in 1690.
They had no right to bring their terrorism to Ireland. No King/Queen of England, past or present, has that right.
The Crown’s historic and central role in the oppression of Ireland must never be minimized. All bad things done to Ireland by the British Parliament required the “Royal Assent.” … And
all current/future bad things require the Royal Assent... Hence
the meaning of the phrase "King in Parliament," which makes clear that the supreme legislative authority of the United Kingdom (and a place called Northern Ireland) consists of the
King (Sovereign/Monarch), the House of Commons, and the House of Lords ... And yet a few Irish-Americans have tried to tell me that the anti-Catholic British constitution (which reflects and directs all this) has nothing to do with injustice in Ireland, even the North! Imagine "useful idiots" (for England) telling a Fermanagh man that!
Therefore, show where you stand. Sign the One Ireland Petition. Sign for unity, not division or Partition.
SIGN FOR A NEW, SHARED IRELAND IN PEACE, UNITY, JUSTICE, AND SOLIDARITY.
SIGN PETITION, NOW SIGNED BY 31,339— https://www.change.org/IrelandOneNation
DONATE—
https://www.irishnationalcaucus.org
—BOTH KING BILLY AND KING JAMES
July 14, 2023
I wish Protestant King William of Orange and Catholic King James II had both lost the Battle of the Boyne in 1690.
They had no right to bring their terrorism to Ireland. No King/Queen of England, past or present, has that right.
The Crown’s historic and central role in the oppression of Ireland must never be minimized. All bad things done to Ireland by the British Parliament required the “Royal Assent.” … And
all current/future bad things require the Royal Assent... Hence
the meaning of the phrase "King in Parliament," which makes clear that the supreme legislative authority of the United Kingdom (and a place called Northern Ireland) consists of the
King (Sovereign/Monarch), the House of Commons, and the House of Lords ... And yet a few Irish-Americans have tried to tell me that the anti-Catholic British constitution (which reflects and directs all this) has nothing to do with injustice in Ireland, even the North! Imagine "useful idiots" (for England) telling a Fermanagh man that!
Therefore, show where you stand. Sign the One Ireland Petition. Sign for unity, not division or Partition.
SIGN FOR A NEW, SHARED IRELAND IN PEACE, UNITY, JUSTICE, AND SOLIDARITY.
SIGN PETITION, NOW SIGNED BY 31,339— https://www.change.org/IrelandOneNation
DONATE—
https://www.irishnationalcaucus.org
14.
“…THOSE WHOM HISTORY HAD SEPARATED”
—King Charles on his first visit as King to Northern Ireland. September 14, 2022.
By Fr. Sean McManus. July 16, 2023.
No, Your Majesty, “history” did not separate the people of Ireland. Your great-grandfather, George V, and the British Parliament did that by their “Partition Act,” December 23, 1920. That Act would not have become law without the Royal Assent of King George V. That Partition/Separation Act deliberately and undemocratically carved out the mini-Six County State of Northern Ireland on a racist (anti-Irish) and sectarian (anti-Catholic) headcount, creating, in effect, a fascist state—guided by Churchill’s infamous declaration: “What if we arm the Protestants.”
And, of course, centuries before that, England had “planted” British Protestants (mostly from northern England and Scotland) in Ireland to ensure “separation,” with laws passed to codify that “separation”—to “keep the Catholics in their place” and keep the country loyal to the Crown, through Protestant Supremacy, brute force, and terrorism.
Indeed, apart from 1649 to 1660 (when the genocidal maniac Cromwell was in charge and when there was no Monarchy), all the bad things done by England to Ireland were done by The Crown/Parliament … And if the rotten Legacy Bill is passed, is there much doubt that King Charles will give his Royal Assent.
If he did not hesitate to swear an appalling anti-Catholic Coronation Oath (“within the context of the Eucharist,” as the King’s own website stresses), will he have any scruples in giving the Royal Assent to that Bill?
However, in the matter of State-sponsored oppression and hatred —whether anti-Catholicism, anti-Black racism, or anti-Semitism (the three historic targets of the KKK, by the way), it is a great mistake to reduce the issue to being about the lack of individual virtue (even though the individual cannot escape all accountability and responsibility). With State-sponsored hatred, oppression, and institutionalized violence, we are talking about what Saint Pope John Paul II called the “structures of sin.” And there is no “structure” as fundamental to any country as its Constitution. And in the un-codified, unwritten British constitution Catholics, all Catholics in the world, (not just Irish/English Catholics) are demonized by being singled out and explicitly excluded from succeeding to the Throne … Like if the American Constitution explicitly excluded Blacks and America Jews from being President. But, thank God, the framers of the Constitution had the wisdom in the First Amendment to reject an Established Church.
When I was based in England and Scotland and observing Prince Charles, I felt he was a decent young man. I hope he will be the first Monarch since 1701 to exorcize this “structure of sin” from the British constitution. Because it justifies, condones, and promotes anti-Catholic hatred in Northern Ireland to deadly effect—as well as showing profound disrespect to the oldest and largest Christian Church in the history of the world.
King Charles is surely better than that? And the Anglican Church because it administered the anti-Catholic Oath— “within the context of the Eucharist”—must also work to change that disgraceful, hate-filled, bigoted Oath.
—King Charles on his first visit as King to Northern Ireland. September 14, 2022.
By Fr. Sean McManus. July 16, 2023.
No, Your Majesty, “history” did not separate the people of Ireland. Your great-grandfather, George V, and the British Parliament did that by their “Partition Act,” December 23, 1920. That Act would not have become law without the Royal Assent of King George V. That Partition/Separation Act deliberately and undemocratically carved out the mini-Six County State of Northern Ireland on a racist (anti-Irish) and sectarian (anti-Catholic) headcount, creating, in effect, a fascist state—guided by Churchill’s infamous declaration: “What if we arm the Protestants.”
And, of course, centuries before that, England had “planted” British Protestants (mostly from northern England and Scotland) in Ireland to ensure “separation,” with laws passed to codify that “separation”—to “keep the Catholics in their place” and keep the country loyal to the Crown, through Protestant Supremacy, brute force, and terrorism.
Indeed, apart from 1649 to 1660 (when the genocidal maniac Cromwell was in charge and when there was no Monarchy), all the bad things done by England to Ireland were done by The Crown/Parliament … And if the rotten Legacy Bill is passed, is there much doubt that King Charles will give his Royal Assent.
If he did not hesitate to swear an appalling anti-Catholic Coronation Oath (“within the context of the Eucharist,” as the King’s own website stresses), will he have any scruples in giving the Royal Assent to that Bill?
However, in the matter of State-sponsored oppression and hatred —whether anti-Catholicism, anti-Black racism, or anti-Semitism (the three historic targets of the KKK, by the way), it is a great mistake to reduce the issue to being about the lack of individual virtue (even though the individual cannot escape all accountability and responsibility). With State-sponsored hatred, oppression, and institutionalized violence, we are talking about what Saint Pope John Paul II called the “structures of sin.” And there is no “structure” as fundamental to any country as its Constitution. And in the un-codified, unwritten British constitution Catholics, all Catholics in the world, (not just Irish/English Catholics) are demonized by being singled out and explicitly excluded from succeeding to the Throne … Like if the American Constitution explicitly excluded Blacks and America Jews from being President. But, thank God, the framers of the Constitution had the wisdom in the First Amendment to reject an Established Church.
When I was based in England and Scotland and observing Prince Charles, I felt he was a decent young man. I hope he will be the first Monarch since 1701 to exorcize this “structure of sin” from the British constitution. Because it justifies, condones, and promotes anti-Catholic hatred in Northern Ireland to deadly effect—as well as showing profound disrespect to the oldest and largest Christian Church in the history of the world.
King Charles is surely better than that? And the Anglican Church because it administered the anti-Catholic Oath— “within the context of the Eucharist”—must also work to change that disgraceful, hate-filled, bigoted Oath.
15.
IRISH CONGRESSIONAL BRIEFING
Distributed to Congress by Irish National Caucus
ENGLAND'S ENDURING BAD FAITH FROM 1920-2023 (NOT TO MENTION FROM 1169 TO 1920).
By Fr. Sean Mc Manus. Saturday, July 22, 2023.
Let our guide on this be, not a famous Irish hero, but a famous French hero—General/President De Gaulle: “For England … there is no alliance that holds, no treaty that is respected, no truth that matters." And now, 103 years after England’s bad faith in partitioning Ireland, December 23, 1920, we have yet another example of England’s bad faith: the odious Legacy Bill … But it is important to remember that just as the Partition Bill could not become law without the Royal Assent of King George V, the Legacy Bill cannot become law without the Royal Assent of King George’s great-grandson—the newly minted King Charles III.
King Charles’ Anti-Catholic oath
King Charles did not hesitate to swear the anti-Catholic Coronation Oath, enforced by the actual British constitution, namely, never to allow a Catholic to be King or Queen—like if the American Constitution excluded by name Blacks or American Jews ever being President. Can you imagine how viciously that would have incited, justified, and condoned anti-Black racism and anti-Semitism?
Well, the current King of England, in a ceremony where he was also described as King of Northern Ireland, swore before God and the entire world he would uphold “Protestant succession to The Throne.” This also meant that he would comply with the rest of the British constitution, namely, if he were to convert to Catholicism, he would automatically forfeit The Throne and his subjects would be absolved from their allegiance. And, if his son Prince William, the next in line to be King, were to convert to the traditional faith of England, and become a Catholic, he, too, would forfeit The Throne … No freedom of religion for The Royal Family!
Do not just take my word for it. Please visit the Royal Family website—
https://www.royal.uk/succession
Of course, forfeiting The Throne would also mean giving up about seven palaces, 20 other residences, untold, ill-gotten wealth stolen from the Monarch’s Empire through slavery, genocide, pillage, and plunder. Just about one hundred years ago, England ruled a quarter of the world’s population, by racism, sectarianism, and international terrorism.
Being Governor of THE Church of England no excuse
And, please let no one try to use the old canard that such State-sponsored anti-Catholicism— King Charles’ Anti-Catholic Coronation Oath— by claiming it’s that way because the Monarch is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, and therefore has to be Protestant. That’s no excuse. It simply proves the wisdom of the framers of the First Amendment of the American Constitution —“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.. .” They knew from the example of England that an established church by definition is sectarian and discriminatory. And for the record, if there were a law that the President of Ireland had to be Catholic, I would oppose that just as much—because it would be sectarian, anti-Protestant, anti-Semitic, anti-Islam, etc., etc.
Shamefully, the House of Lords saves 26 seats for its bishops (non-Catholic, of course), making it one of the few parliaments on earth where religion directly influences civil law … And yet England’s Big Lie is that it is Ireland that is dominated and controlled by the Catholic Church, where no Catholic priest or Bishop was ever in Parliament, North or South … Talk about deflection and projection! (By the way, Iran is the only other country where parliament saves places for unelected clerics).
King Charles should do the right thing
Morality, decency, and humanity demand that King Charles refuses to give his Royal Assent to the odious Legacy Bill and that he works to remove the appalling, bigoted, and disgraceful Anti-Catholic clauses in the Coronation Oath. He should not repeat the error of his great-grandfather King George V and remain on the wrong side of history.
It is time for Royal Reparation, Your Majesty.
END.
To read all Fr. McManus’ statements on King Charles’ Anti-Catholic Coronation Oath, click— https://1118632.wcomhost.com/anti-catholicism-and-the-enduring/
Distributed to Congress by Irish National Caucus
ENGLAND'S ENDURING BAD FAITH FROM 1920-2023 (NOT TO MENTION FROM 1169 TO 1920).
By Fr. Sean Mc Manus. Saturday, July 22, 2023.
Let our guide on this be, not a famous Irish hero, but a famous French hero—General/President De Gaulle: “For England … there is no alliance that holds, no treaty that is respected, no truth that matters." And now, 103 years after England’s bad faith in partitioning Ireland, December 23, 1920, we have yet another example of England’s bad faith: the odious Legacy Bill … But it is important to remember that just as the Partition Bill could not become law without the Royal Assent of King George V, the Legacy Bill cannot become law without the Royal Assent of King George’s great-grandson—the newly minted King Charles III.
King Charles’ Anti-Catholic oath
King Charles did not hesitate to swear the anti-Catholic Coronation Oath, enforced by the actual British constitution, namely, never to allow a Catholic to be King or Queen—like if the American Constitution excluded by name Blacks or American Jews ever being President. Can you imagine how viciously that would have incited, justified, and condoned anti-Black racism and anti-Semitism?
Well, the current King of England, in a ceremony where he was also described as King of Northern Ireland, swore before God and the entire world he would uphold “Protestant succession to The Throne.” This also meant that he would comply with the rest of the British constitution, namely, if he were to convert to Catholicism, he would automatically forfeit The Throne and his subjects would be absolved from their allegiance. And, if his son Prince William, the next in line to be King, were to convert to the traditional faith of England, and become a Catholic, he, too, would forfeit The Throne … No freedom of religion for The Royal Family!
Do not just take my word for it. Please visit the Royal Family website—
https://www.royal.uk/succession
Of course, forfeiting The Throne would also mean giving up about seven palaces, 20 other residences, untold, ill-gotten wealth stolen from the Monarch’s Empire through slavery, genocide, pillage, and plunder. Just about one hundred years ago, England ruled a quarter of the world’s population, by racism, sectarianism, and international terrorism.
Being Governor of THE Church of England no excuse
And, please let no one try to use the old canard that such State-sponsored anti-Catholicism— King Charles’ Anti-Catholic Coronation Oath— by claiming it’s that way because the Monarch is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, and therefore has to be Protestant. That’s no excuse. It simply proves the wisdom of the framers of the First Amendment of the American Constitution —“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.. .” They knew from the example of England that an established church by definition is sectarian and discriminatory. And for the record, if there were a law that the President of Ireland had to be Catholic, I would oppose that just as much—because it would be sectarian, anti-Protestant, anti-Semitic, anti-Islam, etc., etc.
Shamefully, the House of Lords saves 26 seats for its bishops (non-Catholic, of course), making it one of the few parliaments on earth where religion directly influences civil law … And yet England’s Big Lie is that it is Ireland that is dominated and controlled by the Catholic Church, where no Catholic priest or Bishop was ever in Parliament, North or South … Talk about deflection and projection! (By the way, Iran is the only other country where parliament saves places for unelected clerics).
King Charles should do the right thing
Morality, decency, and humanity demand that King Charles refuses to give his Royal Assent to the odious Legacy Bill and that he works to remove the appalling, bigoted, and disgraceful Anti-Catholic clauses in the Coronation Oath. He should not repeat the error of his great-grandfather King George V and remain on the wrong side of history.
It is time for Royal Reparation, Your Majesty.
END.
To read all Fr. McManus’ statements on King Charles’ Anti-Catholic Coronation Oath, click— https://1118632.wcomhost.com/anti-catholicism-and-the-enduring/
16.
RAYMOND MC CORD'S LETTER TO KING CHARLES III URGING HIM TO REFUSE ROYAL ASSENT TO BRITISH LEGACY BILL
His Majesty
The King
Buckingham Palace
London SWA1 1AA
August 3, 2023
Dear Sir,
My name is Raymond McCord and I am from Belfast, Northern Ireland.
My oldest son Raymond Jr was brutally murdered by UVF terrorists who were proven state agents/informers. The Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland Nuala O'Loan now Baroness O'Loan released her report's findings of Raymond Jr's murder and related matters on January 2007. Collusion was proven between the UVF and the PSNI in the murder of my son. Up to this morning, despite the British government, Prime Minister, SOS for NI and the then Chief Constable Sir Hugh Orde accepting the report and collusion in young Raymond’s murder, not one UVF murderer or PSNI officer has been charged.
Collusion between the state and the UVF murderers continues and is strengthened by the British government’s Legacy Bill. Murders carried out by the state's security forces, and their agents in the loyalist and republican paramilitaries are also war crimes and are the real reasons for the Legacy Bill. Lies by a corrupt Conservative government (whose leader Boris Johnson actually lied to your mother, the late Queen Elizabeth, over Brexit and the suspension of Parliament) whose real purpose is to bury the truth of the state's involvement in thousands of murders of innocent men women, and children.
A blind man can see that this nonsense and lies from Heaton-Harris and the Prime Minister with his MPS that this Bill will give victims answers and bring reconciliation by giving murderers/war criminals an amnesty is a complete travesty with the total removal of the human rights of the victims and their families. No investigations, no prosecutions, no inquests, and no civil actions, just a handout of amnesties to the murderers be they members of the security forces or paramilitaries.
Do you honestly believe this government in saying it will help victims' families move on because the families certainly don’t believe it? As a British citizen who has battled all my adult life against sectarianism and the loyalist paramilitaries in my unionist community, I'm asking you or should I say I'm demanding that you as King refuse to sign Royal Assent to this Bill if it's passed in Parliament. Your duty is to your citizens from all faiths and colors not to a government that lies to you of what this Bill is about in word and statute.
The murdered victims include not just civilians but also members of the armed forces, so it shows how far the government will go to hide their dirty washing. Nothing is sacred to them except coverups and lies. This letter is not just about Raymond Jr., but also about every victim and their family during the "Troubles. "The question is can you as King put your signature and give Royal Assent to a Bill of lies that breaks International Law and agreements and is rejected by all victims, all political parties in Ireland and the UK (except the Conservatives,) and the EU, and destroys truth and justice and creates more victims to satisfy the state's cover-up of their hand in murders.
Ripping up the justice system makes the UK a laughingstock throughout the world. Finally, I would remind you that murder is a crime whether you wear a uniform or not, and I along with thousands of victims will judge you if you're a friend/ supporter of victims’ rights, or the King who turned a blind eye to the murders of his citizens and others.
Sectarian murderers, war criminals, and the state's security agencies will be given amnesties for committing thousands of murders. Refuse to give the Bill Royal Assent or be complicit in the cover-up of the murder of Raymond McCord Jr. and thousands of other murdered victims. Stand with the victims or go down in history as the King who wore a blindfold instead of looking for justice.
Are you prepared to meet me and hear the truth?
Raymond McCord, Jr. Victims’ Campaigner. North Belfast.
END.
The King
Buckingham Palace
London SWA1 1AA
August 3, 2023
Dear Sir,
My name is Raymond McCord and I am from Belfast, Northern Ireland.
My oldest son Raymond Jr was brutally murdered by UVF terrorists who were proven state agents/informers. The Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland Nuala O'Loan now Baroness O'Loan released her report's findings of Raymond Jr's murder and related matters on January 2007. Collusion was proven between the UVF and the PSNI in the murder of my son. Up to this morning, despite the British government, Prime Minister, SOS for NI and the then Chief Constable Sir Hugh Orde accepting the report and collusion in young Raymond’s murder, not one UVF murderer or PSNI officer has been charged.
Collusion between the state and the UVF murderers continues and is strengthened by the British government’s Legacy Bill. Murders carried out by the state's security forces, and their agents in the loyalist and republican paramilitaries are also war crimes and are the real reasons for the Legacy Bill. Lies by a corrupt Conservative government (whose leader Boris Johnson actually lied to your mother, the late Queen Elizabeth, over Brexit and the suspension of Parliament) whose real purpose is to bury the truth of the state's involvement in thousands of murders of innocent men women, and children.
A blind man can see that this nonsense and lies from Heaton-Harris and the Prime Minister with his MPS that this Bill will give victims answers and bring reconciliation by giving murderers/war criminals an amnesty is a complete travesty with the total removal of the human rights of the victims and their families. No investigations, no prosecutions, no inquests, and no civil actions, just a handout of amnesties to the murderers be they members of the security forces or paramilitaries.
Do you honestly believe this government in saying it will help victims' families move on because the families certainly don’t believe it? As a British citizen who has battled all my adult life against sectarianism and the loyalist paramilitaries in my unionist community, I'm asking you or should I say I'm demanding that you as King refuse to sign Royal Assent to this Bill if it's passed in Parliament. Your duty is to your citizens from all faiths and colors not to a government that lies to you of what this Bill is about in word and statute.
The murdered victims include not just civilians but also members of the armed forces, so it shows how far the government will go to hide their dirty washing. Nothing is sacred to them except coverups and lies. This letter is not just about Raymond Jr., but also about every victim and their family during the "Troubles. "The question is can you as King put your signature and give Royal Assent to a Bill of lies that breaks International Law and agreements and is rejected by all victims, all political parties in Ireland and the UK (except the Conservatives,) and the EU, and destroys truth and justice and creates more victims to satisfy the state's cover-up of their hand in murders.
Ripping up the justice system makes the UK a laughingstock throughout the world. Finally, I would remind you that murder is a crime whether you wear a uniform or not, and I along with thousands of victims will judge you if you're a friend/ supporter of victims’ rights, or the King who turned a blind eye to the murders of his citizens and others.
Sectarian murderers, war criminals, and the state's security agencies will be given amnesties for committing thousands of murders. Refuse to give the Bill Royal Assent or be complicit in the cover-up of the murder of Raymond McCord Jr. and thousands of other murdered victims. Stand with the victims or go down in history as the King who wore a blindfold instead of looking for justice.
Are you prepared to meet me and hear the truth?
Raymond McCord, Jr. Victims’ Campaigner. North Belfast.
END.
17.
King Charles urged not to give Northern Ireland Legacy Bill royal assent by father of man murdered by the UVF
IRISH CONGRESSIONAL BRIEFING
Distributed to Congress by Irish National Caucus
King Charles urged not to give Northern Ireland Legacy Bill royal assent by father of man murdered by the UVF
Raymond McCord's son was killed in 1997 with a report later linking his death to collusion between loyalist paramilitaries and the security services
By Douglas Dickie Content editor. Scottish Daily Express. August 11, 2023.
Distributed to Congress by Irish National Caucus
King Charles urged not to give Northern Ireland Legacy Bill royal assent by father of man murdered by the UVF
Raymond McCord's son was killed in 1997 with a report later linking his death to collusion between loyalist paramilitaries and the security services
By Douglas Dickie Content editor. Scottish Daily Express. August 11, 2023.
King Charles has been urged not to give the Northern Ireland Legacy Bill royal assent by an Ulsterman whose son was murdered by the UVF. The UK Government is pushing on with the legislation, which will put an end to court cases and inquests relating to the Troubles.
It would also offer a conditional amnesty to those accused of killings, a move that has been criticized by the families of victims. More than 3,500 people died between the late 1960s and 1998 in the conflict, the majority of whom were civilians.
Northern Ireland Secretary Chris Heaton-Harris said the Bill will "address the legacy of the past" and help families gain more information about the killing of their loved ones. Among those opposed to the Bill is campaigner Raymond McCord.
His son, also Raymond, was arrested in 1997 after allegedly being found with a haul of cannabis and was beaten to death with concrete slabs at the age of 22 by the UVF who feared he could inform the police on the involvement of a commander in the drug trade.
An earlier version of this story suggested Raymond McCord was a member of the UVF who had been involved in drug running. We'd like to point out Mr. McCord was not a member of the UVF and was never convicted of a drug offense. We are happy to set the record straight.
A report by the police ombudsman, ordered after a campaign by Mr. McCord, later concluded there had been collusion between the UVF and the security services of the RUC in over a dozen murders in Belfast. Mr. McCord, 69, who has stood unsuccessfully for Westminster in the past and once addressed the Sinn Fein party conference wearing his father's Orange Order sash, now wants the monarch to prevent the Bill from passing.
In a letter to the King, he said it was "lies" to suggest the Bill will "give victims answers and bring reconciliation by giving murderers/war criminals an amnesty". He also described it as "a complete travesty with the total removal of the human rights of the victims and their families."
Mr. McCord, who wants a meeting with the head-of-state, went on: "As a British citizen who has battled all my adult life against sectarianism and the loyalist paramilitaries in my unionist community, I'm asking you, or should I say I'm demanding, that you as King refuse to sign royal assent to this Bill if it's passed in Parliament. Your duty is to your citizens from all faiths and colors, not to a government that lies to you of what this Bill is about in word and statute."
Defending the Bill before Westminster broke for the summer, Mr. Heaton-Harris said: "The Bill contains finely balanced political and moral choices that are uncomfortable for many, but we should be honest about what we can realistically deliver for people in Northern Ireland, in circumstances where the prospects of achieving justice in the traditional sense are so vanishingly small. The Bill seeks to deliver an approach that focuses on what can practically be achieved to deliver better outcomes for all those who suffered, including those who served, and it aims to help society look forward together to a more shared future."
The Bill was passed at the third stage in the Commons on July 18. As well as the impact on victims' families, concerns have also been raised about its impact on the Good Friday Agreement and human rights laws.
It would also offer a conditional amnesty to those accused of killings, a move that has been criticized by the families of victims. More than 3,500 people died between the late 1960s and 1998 in the conflict, the majority of whom were civilians.
Northern Ireland Secretary Chris Heaton-Harris said the Bill will "address the legacy of the past" and help families gain more information about the killing of their loved ones. Among those opposed to the Bill is campaigner Raymond McCord.
His son, also Raymond, was arrested in 1997 after allegedly being found with a haul of cannabis and was beaten to death with concrete slabs at the age of 22 by the UVF who feared he could inform the police on the involvement of a commander in the drug trade.
An earlier version of this story suggested Raymond McCord was a member of the UVF who had been involved in drug running. We'd like to point out Mr. McCord was not a member of the UVF and was never convicted of a drug offense. We are happy to set the record straight.
A report by the police ombudsman, ordered after a campaign by Mr. McCord, later concluded there had been collusion between the UVF and the security services of the RUC in over a dozen murders in Belfast. Mr. McCord, 69, who has stood unsuccessfully for Westminster in the past and once addressed the Sinn Fein party conference wearing his father's Orange Order sash, now wants the monarch to prevent the Bill from passing.
In a letter to the King, he said it was "lies" to suggest the Bill will "give victims answers and bring reconciliation by giving murderers/war criminals an amnesty". He also described it as "a complete travesty with the total removal of the human rights of the victims and their families."
Mr. McCord, who wants a meeting with the head-of-state, went on: "As a British citizen who has battled all my adult life against sectarianism and the loyalist paramilitaries in my unionist community, I'm asking you, or should I say I'm demanding, that you as King refuse to sign royal assent to this Bill if it's passed in Parliament. Your duty is to your citizens from all faiths and colors, not to a government that lies to you of what this Bill is about in word and statute."
Defending the Bill before Westminster broke for the summer, Mr. Heaton-Harris said: "The Bill contains finely balanced political and moral choices that are uncomfortable for many, but we should be honest about what we can realistically deliver for people in Northern Ireland, in circumstances where the prospects of achieving justice in the traditional sense are so vanishingly small. The Bill seeks to deliver an approach that focuses on what can practically be achieved to deliver better outcomes for all those who suffered, including those who served, and it aims to help society look forward together to a more shared future."
The Bill was passed at the third stage in the Commons on July 18. As well as the impact on victims' families, concerns have also been raised about its impact on the Good Friday Agreement and human rights laws.
18.
August 16. 2023
MC CORD ON THE "MURDERERS' CHARTER" —THE BRITISH LEGACY BILL, TO WHICH KING CHARLES CAN, AND SHOULD, REFUSE HIS ROYAL ASSENT.
IRISH CONGRESSIONAL BRIEFING
Distributed to Congress by Irish National Caucus
Distributed to Congress by Irish National Caucus
“Another article in Scottish Daily Express on the unstoppable Raymond McCord in his struggle for justice.”—Fr. Sean McManus.
Father of man beaten to death by UVF mob says Troubles Legacy Bill is a murderers’ charter.
Raymond McCord, Sr. said hundreds of unsolved killings in Northern Ireland during the Troubles were carried out by paid informants, who were never punished due to their inside knowledge – and who may now be given an amnesty.
Ben Borland. Scottish Daily Express. Wednesday, August 16, 2023
A man whose son was brutally murdered by a loyalist drugs gang has said people in Scotland deserve to know the truth about the Northern Ireland Troubles Legacy and Reconciliation Bill.
The controversial UK Government legislation will offer an amnesty to anyone who was involved in violent incidents before 1998 in return for their cooperation on cases. This could include meeting their victims' families to give them "answers" about how their loved ones died.
Speaking to the Scottish Daily Express, Raymond McCord Sr, said the Bill was often framed as a way of protecting ex-servicemen against vexatious historic prosecutions. But he claimed the real purpose was to cover up the British state's involvement in hundreds of killings.
He said: "The British government and the security agencies are frightened of the truth. The state was involved in many, many murders and this is what they are frightened of.... the last thing they want is for their hand in hundreds of murders to be revealed."
Around 3,600 people were murdered during the Troubles and around 2,000 of those are still unsolved. "I've seen evidence to show that 1,700 of those unsolved murders involved paid informants," Mr. McCord said.
One of those was the murder of his son, ex-RAF serviceman Raymond McCord, Jr., 22, who was beaten to death by a UVF mob in 1997. It has been reported that all those involved were paid informants.
Mr. McCord – who is from the loyalist community in Northern Ireland – said: "Working as an informant was not a get out of jail free card, it was "a don't go to jail in the first place card. I've spoken to a policeman who had a serial murderer in his car and he couldn't take him to jail because he was told 'that man knows too much."
"People on the mainland have been given the wrong end of the stick about this Bill. Imagine if you took all the unsolved murders in Scotland or London over the past 50 years and told the families they aren't going to be investigated. If anybody can tell me that's justice then I'd like to hear it.
"They say the process isn't working, the justice system isn't working, but that's because the government, the security agencies, won't let it work. [Veterans minister] Johnny Mercer and others say giving an amnesty to murder will help the families move on and help them get answers. We've got answers, we know who is responsible.
"Our sons, daughters, fathers, mothers, grans, sisters and brothers have been murdered but instead of a court and a judge and a jury to decide guilt or innocence, that decision is being taken by politicians."
Mr. McCord is part of a campaign group who all lost loved ones through republican, loyalist, and British Army violence during the Troubles. Their stories have been told in a film that will be shown at Westminster next month when peers and MPs debate the next stage of the Bill.
He said: "Every party in Ireland on both sides of the border has rejected this, every family member has rejected this, every victims' group has rejected it. The Labor Party has rejected it, and the SNP has rejected it, but the British government intends to reward mass murderers with an amnesty and punish the victims and their families for one reason—to hide the truth of state-sponsored murders.
A UK Government spokesman said: "In order to deliver greater information, accountability, and acknowledgment to victims and families affected by the Troubles, we must do things differently.
"The legislation provides a framework that will enable the Independent Commission for Reconciliation & Information Recovery (ICRIR) established by the Bill to deliver effective legacy mechanisms while complying with our international obligations.
"While the Bill makes provision for the grant of immunity from prosecution for individuals in exchange for an account that is true to the best of their knowledge and belief, it also ensures that those who decline to assist in the provision of information can be prosecuted in the usual way."
19.
McCord-Irish National Caucus call on King Charles to refuse Royal Assent to appalling British Amnesty Bill
The Tories in the British Parliament have the votes to pass the appalling Amnesty Bill. Only one individual can personally stop them—King Charles III.
In the British system, such a Bill can only become law with the “Royal Assent”—the assent of the Monarch, King, or Queen. The fact that the Royal Assent has never been refused since 1708 does not officially change the law: the Monarch still has the right to refuse. Because of this fact, the Irish National called on July 27, 2023, for King Charles to refuse his Royal Assent, and later Raymond McCord issued his call on August 3, 2023.
Belfast Protestant McCord has been the most visible opponent of the Amnesty Bill on the entire island of Ireland. His son Raymond, Jr. was brutally murdered near Belfast in 1997 and, because those responsible for the murder were British agents and police informers, the British government has ruthlessly covered up the crime to this day.
The Irish National Caucus has brought Raymond, Sr. to Capitol Hill three times, securing a Congressional Hearing for him in 2009.
Fr. Sean Mc Manus, President of the Irish National Caucus, said: “It is clear to all informed about the political dynamics of Northern Ireland, that the testimony, courage, and determination of Raymond, Sr. has unique resonance and power. Indeed, the British Embassy in Washington fears no voice as much as his. The British government is well used to fending off charges of killing Catholics in Ireland (after all, they have a lot of practice!). But when a Protestant breaks rank and bravely speaks truth to power as the indomitable McCord has done, the British government cannot handle the truth.”
Fr. Mc Manus continued: “Although the Amnesty Bill offers amnesty to others besides British soldiers and their political bosses, everyone knows that the Bill is not about helping the Protestants and Catholics of Northern Ireland—it is all about England’s interests, and always has been… The Protestants were used …the Catholics were abused. That’s what the British Empire did throughout the world—divide and conquer.
(Raymond McCord and I may not agree on all points about the British Empire, nor do we have to work for justice in particular cases. But we agree that King Charles should refuse his Royal Assent to this appalling Amnesty Bill. Indeed, all political parties in Ireland, north and south, are opposed to the Amnesty Bill, thanks to Raymond’s inspiring leadership).
Fr. McManus concluded: “Blessed Martin Luther King, Jr. taught us, ‘The time is always right to do what is right.’ The time is now right for King Charles.”
20.
TWO ANTI-CATHOLIC OATHS—KING CHARLES AND KKK
KING CHARLES’ OATH
“I Charles do solemnly and sincerely in the presence of God profess, testify, and declare that I am a faithful Protestant and that I will, according to the true intent of the enactments which secure the Protestant succession to the Throne, uphold, and maintain the said enactments to the best of my powers according to law.”
KKK’S OATH
Tucker, Todd. NOTRE DAME VS. THE KLAN. 2018. University of Notre Dame Press. Indiana. Pages 56-57.
“Do you believe in and will you faithfully strive for the eternal maintenance of white supremacy? …
According to the [1915] revived Klan’s new code, ‘only American citizens who believe in the tenets of the Christian religion and owe no allegiance of any degree or nature to any foreign government, nation, political institution, sect, people, or person are eligible.’ The foreign person referred to was, of course, the pope, the foreign government, the Vatican.[The KKK] had codified American anti-Catholicism.”
Notice the similarity between King Charles' pledge and the KKK's pledge to exclude Catholics … No moral difference between Protestant Supremacy and White Supremacy. All people of faith, and those of no faith, but of goodwill, must surely condemn these twin evils of the world—racism and sectarianism.
However, lest people, and especially Catholics, not fully understand the meaning of ‘Protestant succession to the Throne,’ King Charles’ very own website bluntly lays down the anti-Catholic law:’ “Parliament, under the Bill of Rights [1689]and the Act of Settlement [1701], also laid down various conditions which the Sovereign must meet. A Roman Catholic is specifically excluded from succession to the throne.”
Website of British Royal Family. https://www.royal.uk/encyclopedia/succession
The usual old canard given to excuse the anti-Catholic hatred and bigotry of the British constitution—that the Monarch cannot be Catholic because the Monarch is the Governor of the Anglican Church. That is not an excuse, but proof that Church and State should be separate, as in the First Amendment of the American Constitution.
KING CHARLES’ OATH
“I Charles do solemnly and sincerely in the presence of God profess, testify, and declare that I am a faithful Protestant and that I will, according to the true intent of the enactments which secure the Protestant succession to the Throne, uphold, and maintain the said enactments to the best of my powers according to law.”
KKK’S OATH
Tucker, Todd. NOTRE DAME VS. THE KLAN. 2018. University of Notre Dame Press. Indiana. Pages 56-57.
“Do you believe in and will you faithfully strive for the eternal maintenance of white supremacy? …
According to the [1915] revived Klan’s new code, ‘only American citizens who believe in the tenets of the Christian religion and owe no allegiance of any degree or nature to any foreign government, nation, political institution, sect, people, or person are eligible.’ The foreign person referred to was, of course, the pope, the foreign government, the Vatican.[The KKK] had codified American anti-Catholicism.”
Notice the similarity between King Charles' pledge and the KKK's pledge to exclude Catholics … No moral difference between Protestant Supremacy and White Supremacy. All people of faith, and those of no faith, but of goodwill, must surely condemn these twin evils of the world—racism and sectarianism.
However, lest people, and especially Catholics, not fully understand the meaning of ‘Protestant succession to the Throne,’ King Charles’ very own website bluntly lays down the anti-Catholic law:’ “Parliament, under the Bill of Rights [1689]and the Act of Settlement [1701], also laid down various conditions which the Sovereign must meet. A Roman Catholic is specifically excluded from succession to the throne.”
Website of British Royal Family. https://www.royal.uk/encyclopedia/succession
The usual old canard given to excuse the anti-Catholic hatred and bigotry of the British constitution—that the Monarch cannot be Catholic because the Monarch is the Governor of the Anglican Church. That is not an excuse, but proof that Church and State should be separate, as in the First Amendment of the American Constitution.
21.
KING CHARLES AND KKK—TWO ANTI-CATHOLIC OATHS
KING CHARLES’ OATH
“I Charles do solemnly and sincerely in the presence of God profess, testify, and declare that I am a faithful Protestant and that I will, according to the true intent of the enactments which secure the Protestant succession to the Throne, uphold, and maintain the said enactments to the best of my powers according to law.”
KKK’S OATH
Tucker, Todd. NOTRE DAME VS. THE KLAN. 2018. University of Notre Dame Press. Indiana. Pages 56-57.
“Do you believe in and will you faithfully strive for the eternal maintenance of white supremacy? …
According to the [1915] revived Klan’s new code, ‘only American citizens who believe in the tenets of the Christian religion and owe no allegiance of any degree or nature to any foreign government, nation, political institution, sect, people, or person are eligible.’ The foreign person referred to was, of course, the pope, the foreign government, the Vatican. [The KKK] had codified American anti-Catholicism.”
KING CHARLES’ OATH
“I Charles do solemnly and sincerely in the presence of God profess, testify, and declare that I am a faithful Protestant and that I will, according to the true intent of the enactments which secure the Protestant succession to the Throne, uphold, and maintain the said enactments to the best of my powers according to law.”
KKK’S OATH
Tucker, Todd. NOTRE DAME VS. THE KLAN. 2018. University of Notre Dame Press. Indiana. Pages 56-57.
“Do you believe in and will you faithfully strive for the eternal maintenance of white supremacy? …
According to the [1915] revived Klan’s new code, ‘only American citizens who believe in the tenets of the Christian religion and owe no allegiance of any degree or nature to any foreign government, nation, political institution, sect, people, or person are eligible.’ The foreign person referred to was, of course, the pope, the foreign government, the Vatican. [The KKK] had codified American anti-Catholicism.”
“The [1915] revived Klan…expressed the defensive reaction of white Protestants in small-town America who felt threatened by … the large-scale immigration of the previous decades that had changed the ethnic character of American society.”—
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Ku-Klux-Klan/Revival-of-the-Ku-Klux-Klan
Notice the similarity between King Charles' pledge and the KKK's pledge to exclude Catholics … No moral difference between Protestant Supremacy and White Supremacy. All people of faith, and those of no faith, but of goodwill, must surely condemn these twin evils of the world—racism and sectarianism.
However, lest people, and especially Catholics, not fully understand the meaning of ‘Protestant succession to the Throne,’ King Charles’ very own website bluntly lays down the anti-Catholic law:’ “Parliament, under the Bill of Rights [1689]and the Act of Settlement [1701], also laid down various conditions which the Sovereign must meet. A Roman Catholic is specifically excluded from succession to the throne.”
Website of British Royal Family. https://www.royal.uk/encyclopedia/succession
The usual old canard given to excuse the anti-Catholic hatred and bigotry of the British constitution—that the Monarch cannot be Catholic because the Monarch is the Governor of the Anglican Church. That is not an excuse, but proof that Church and State should be separate, as in the First Amendment of the American Constitution.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Ku-Klux-Klan/Revival-of-the-Ku-Klux-Klan
Notice the similarity between King Charles' pledge and the KKK's pledge to exclude Catholics … No moral difference between Protestant Supremacy and White Supremacy. All people of faith, and those of no faith, but of goodwill, must surely condemn these twin evils of the world—racism and sectarianism.
However, lest people, and especially Catholics, not fully understand the meaning of ‘Protestant succession to the Throne,’ King Charles’ very own website bluntly lays down the anti-Catholic law:’ “Parliament, under the Bill of Rights [1689]and the Act of Settlement [1701], also laid down various conditions which the Sovereign must meet. A Roman Catholic is specifically excluded from succession to the throne.”
Website of British Royal Family. https://www.royal.uk/encyclopedia/succession
The usual old canard given to excuse the anti-Catholic hatred and bigotry of the British constitution—that the Monarch cannot be Catholic because the Monarch is the Governor of the Anglican Church. That is not an excuse, but proof that Church and State should be separate, as in the First Amendment of the American Constitution.
22.
“THE KING-IN-PARLIAMENT”—A POX ON BOTH YOUR HOUSES FOR YOUR LEGACY BILL- LAW
God save the Catholics and Protestants of Ireland north, south, east, and west.
God save the Catholics and Protestants of Ireland north, south, east, and west.
Tuesday, September 19, 2023
On December 23, 1920, King George V and the British Parliament unilaterally partitioned Ireland. And now King George’s great-grandson, King Charles III, and the British Parliament have given Ireland the shameful Legacy Bill, turned into law by the Royal Assent.
In 1920, the King-in-Parliament lied to both the Protestants and Catholics—secretly telling the Protestants that the new, artificial entity of Northern Ireland would last forever, while secretly telling the Catholics it was too small to last. And now, again, the King-in-Parliament has lied to the Protestants and Catholics —telling them the shameful Legacy Bill/Law is for the good of both Protestants and Catholics when everyone knows it is only for the good of England. (We can hardly blame Wales or Scotland, despite individuals like Prime Minister Lloyd George and Lord Balfour).
The only good that can be gleaned from this is that maybe it is England’s final contempt before it leaves Ireland.
—Fr. Sean McManus.
On December 23, 1920, King George V and the British Parliament unilaterally partitioned Ireland. And now King George’s great-grandson, King Charles III, and the British Parliament have given Ireland the shameful Legacy Bill, turned into law by the Royal Assent.
In 1920, the King-in-Parliament lied to both the Protestants and Catholics—secretly telling the Protestants that the new, artificial entity of Northern Ireland would last forever, while secretly telling the Catholics it was too small to last. And now, again, the King-in-Parliament has lied to the Protestants and Catholics —telling them the shameful Legacy Bill/Law is for the good of both Protestants and Catholics when everyone knows it is only for the good of England. (We can hardly blame Wales or Scotland, despite individuals like Prime Minister Lloyd George and Lord Balfour).
The only good that can be gleaned from this is that maybe it is England’s final contempt before it leaves Ireland.
—Fr. Sean McManus.
23.
NEITHER KING NOR PARLIAMENT CAN BE EXCUSED FROM CRIMES IN IRELAND
IRISH CONGRESSIONAL BRIEFING
Distributed to Congress by the Irish National Caucus
September 22, 2023.
The formal phrase “King in Parliament” (or Monarch in Parliament or Crown in Parliament) is used to describe the British legislature, composed of the Sovereign, the House of Lords, and the House of Commons. Thus, for Bills to become law (an Act) the King must give his Royal Assent. So, for example, the shameful and universally opposed Legacy Bill could not have become the Legacy Act without the collusion of King Charles III. Therefore, let no one try to tell you that the King of England has no real power—he most certainly has.
Had King Charles’ great-grandfather King George V not given his Royal Assent on December 23, 1920, to the Partition of Ireland, it could not have become law.
Therefore, it can be properly said that both King Charles III and King George V colluded in a profoundly undemocratic and unjust crimes against Ireland—like so many of their predecessors.
And, yet, one the greatest con-jobs of all time is that the Monarchs of England have succeeded in giving the impression that they are totally above the fray, sweetly uninvolved, and just wishing things had been different. So, for example, Charles on his first visit as King to Northern Ireland, piously bemoaned about, “those whom history had separated.”
No, Your Majesty, “history” did not do that. Your great-grand father did that, along with your Parliament. … Just like YOU give your Royal Assent to the shameful Legacy Bill turning it into an Act …Just like You blatantly and blithely swore YOUR anti-Catholic Coronation Oath as required by the unwritten and uncodified British Constitution.
History did not do that deed of “separation.” YOU did it.
Collusion of the Church of England
But the Coronation Ceremony, also, laid bare the complicity of the Church of England in this great sin of Catholic exclusion, banning, and demonization.
The Royal Family website laid out the role of the Church of England and other participating Church Ministers in the Coronation in its “The Coronation Service – Order of Service”— “Today’s service draws on that long tradition, set once again within the context of the Eucharist, which is the defining act of worship for the Church universal.”
Therefore, the Coronation is not just a civic ceremony but a religious one… And exclusion and bigotry in the context of the Eucharist is particularly shocking, if not sacrilegious and blasphemous.
How can the Church of England and the other Ministers who played an active role in administering the Anti-Catholic Coronation Oath possibly justify their action because the Eucharist is meant to be “a sacrament of love, a sign of unity, a bond of charity.” … Yet, the very law—the highest law in England and in the British constitution—which governs the Coronation, brazenly, proudly, and by name, excludes Catholics—the oldest and largest Christian faith in the history of the world?
Divine Right of Kings Blasphemy
Finally, the script for administering the Anti-Catholic oath seems to tacitly condone the awful history of England’s colonialism and the discredited blasphemy of the “divine right of Kings.” Just one example: The Anglican Archbishop says: “WILL you solemnly promise and swear to govern the Peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland…” and, “BE your head anointed with holy oil, …so may you be anointed, blessed, and consecrated King over the peoples, whom the Lord your God has given you to rule and govern.”
How, in the name of God, could the Archbishop utter words like that? God never gave Ireland, or any part thereof, to any King of England—nor, indeed, did God give any country in the previous British Empire to England. England stole it all— by international terrorism, racism, sectarianism, genocide, socially engineered famines, rape, and plunder. Time to build up The Beloved Community—as advocated by Blessed Martin Luther King, Jr.— in Ireland, north, south, east, and west.
That can never happen under England’s rule. We have 854 years of proof of that.
IF YOU LIKE THE WORK OF THE IRISH NATIONAL CAUCUS,
PLEASE DONATE TO SUPPORT IT.
IRISH CONGRESSIONAL BRIEFING
Distributed to Congress by the Irish National Caucus
September 22, 2023.
The formal phrase “King in Parliament” (or Monarch in Parliament or Crown in Parliament) is used to describe the British legislature, composed of the Sovereign, the House of Lords, and the House of Commons. Thus, for Bills to become law (an Act) the King must give his Royal Assent. So, for example, the shameful and universally opposed Legacy Bill could not have become the Legacy Act without the collusion of King Charles III. Therefore, let no one try to tell you that the King of England has no real power—he most certainly has.
Had King Charles’ great-grandfather King George V not given his Royal Assent on December 23, 1920, to the Partition of Ireland, it could not have become law.
Therefore, it can be properly said that both King Charles III and King George V colluded in a profoundly undemocratic and unjust crimes against Ireland—like so many of their predecessors.
And, yet, one the greatest con-jobs of all time is that the Monarchs of England have succeeded in giving the impression that they are totally above the fray, sweetly uninvolved, and just wishing things had been different. So, for example, Charles on his first visit as King to Northern Ireland, piously bemoaned about, “those whom history had separated.”
No, Your Majesty, “history” did not do that. Your great-grand father did that, along with your Parliament. … Just like YOU give your Royal Assent to the shameful Legacy Bill turning it into an Act …Just like You blatantly and blithely swore YOUR anti-Catholic Coronation Oath as required by the unwritten and uncodified British Constitution.
History did not do that deed of “separation.” YOU did it.
Collusion of the Church of England
But the Coronation Ceremony, also, laid bare the complicity of the Church of England in this great sin of Catholic exclusion, banning, and demonization.
The Royal Family website laid out the role of the Church of England and other participating Church Ministers in the Coronation in its “The Coronation Service – Order of Service”— “Today’s service draws on that long tradition, set once again within the context of the Eucharist, which is the defining act of worship for the Church universal.”
Therefore, the Coronation is not just a civic ceremony but a religious one… And exclusion and bigotry in the context of the Eucharist is particularly shocking, if not sacrilegious and blasphemous.
How can the Church of England and the other Ministers who played an active role in administering the Anti-Catholic Coronation Oath possibly justify their action because the Eucharist is meant to be “a sacrament of love, a sign of unity, a bond of charity.” … Yet, the very law—the highest law in England and in the British constitution—which governs the Coronation, brazenly, proudly, and by name, excludes Catholics—the oldest and largest Christian faith in the history of the world?
Divine Right of Kings Blasphemy
Finally, the script for administering the Anti-Catholic oath seems to tacitly condone the awful history of England’s colonialism and the discredited blasphemy of the “divine right of Kings.” Just one example: The Anglican Archbishop says: “WILL you solemnly promise and swear to govern the Peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland…” and, “BE your head anointed with holy oil, …so may you be anointed, blessed, and consecrated King over the peoples, whom the Lord your God has given you to rule and govern.”
How, in the name of God, could the Archbishop utter words like that? God never gave Ireland, or any part thereof, to any King of England—nor, indeed, did God give any country in the previous British Empire to England. England stole it all— by international terrorism, racism, sectarianism, genocide, socially engineered famines, rape, and plunder. Time to build up The Beloved Community—as advocated by Blessed Martin Luther King, Jr.— in Ireland, north, south, east, and west.
That can never happen under England’s rule. We have 854 years of proof of that.
IF YOU LIKE THE WORK OF THE IRISH NATIONAL CAUCUS,
PLEASE DONATE TO SUPPORT IT.
24.
WHILE ENGLAND STILL HAS A FOOTHOLD IN IRELAND, NOTHING WILL CHANGE
FR. MC MANUS IN TODAY'S IRISH NEWS, BELFAST, ON FORMER BRITISH PRIME MINISTER HEATH AND KING CHARLES III'S ANTI-CATHOLIC OATH
IRISH CONGRESSIONAL BRIEFINGDISTRIBUTED TO CONGRESS BY IRISH NATIONAL CAUCUS
While England still has a foothold in Ireland, nothing will change
Irish News, Belfast. October 27, 2023.
“What blatant hypocrisy and colonial patronization. It was England’s historical policy to ensure that their Protestant proxies would help England keep the Catholics down—for centuries in the whole of Ireland and later on in Northern Ireland.”
25.
NOV 28, 2023
King Charles in the Imperial State Crown and Queen Camilla in her coronation dress following the coronation.
IRISH CONGRESSIONAL BRIEFING
Distributed to Congress by Irish National Caucus
“The silence on the sectarian, anti-Catholic British constitution —and on King Charles’ bigoted Coronation Oath— is truly appalling. Especially since is seen to justify all the historic anti-Catholicism in Northern Ireland.”
—Fr. Sean McManus.
Constitutionally- enshrined hatred is wrong in principle
By Fr. Sean Mc Manus. President, Irish National Caucus,
Washington, D.C.
Letters to the Editor. Irish News. Belfast. Tuesday, November 28, 2023
If there were clauses in the unwritten, uncodified British constitution prohibiting black people or Jews from being king or queen of England, every political party in Ireland, north and south, would rush to condemn it (as they should, and I would be the first).
Yet, on May 6, 2023, King Charles in his coronation proudly swore before God and the entire world that he would uphold and defend “Protestant succession to the throne” – in other words, no Catholics need apply.
And yet, despite this in-your-face crude and appalling bigotry and anti-Catholicism, not one political leader in Ireland, north or south, publicly demurred. Not one said that such constitutionally-enshrined hatred is wrong in principle – especially its fruit in Ireland.
Oppression is complete when people internalize/accept the contempt of the oppressor.
And, to make sure his meaning would not be missed, the king’s own website before his coronation spelled it out: “The Act [of Settlement 1701] laid down that only Protestant descendants… are eligible to succeed. Subsequent Acts have confirmed this. Parliament, under the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement, also laid down various conditions which the sovereign must meet. A Roman Catholic is specifically excluded from succession to the throne. The sovereign must, in addition, be in communion with the Church of England and must swear to preserve the established Church of England and the established Church of Scotland. The sovereign must also promise to uphold the Protestant succession.”
(www.royal.uk/encyclopedia/succession)
The Bill of Rights 1689 states that should monarchs convert to Roman Catholicism, they immediately and automatically cease to be monarchs (“be forever incapable to inherit, possess, or enjoy the Crown”) and that the subjects are absolved from their allegiance.
Imagine the brazen hypocrisy of such a title “Bill of Rights” that by name excludes and demonizes Catholics – the largest Christian Church in the history of the world – and that King Charles proudly swore to defend it in 2023. If it were not so deadly serious for its implications in Northern Ireland (justifying anti-Catholic discrimination), it would be almost laughable.
And so, it will continue for as long as there is an established Church (meaning no separation between Church and State) in England, with the monarch its automatic governor. And yet, despite all this, England succeeded in presenting Ireland as Church-dominated, when in fact, and in its highest laws and constitution, England itself is a sort of theocracy.
IRISH CONGRESSIONAL BRIEFING
Distributed to Congress by Irish National Caucus
“The silence on the sectarian, anti-Catholic British constitution —and on King Charles’ bigoted Coronation Oath— is truly appalling. Especially since is seen to justify all the historic anti-Catholicism in Northern Ireland.”
—Fr. Sean McManus.
Constitutionally- enshrined hatred is wrong in principle
By Fr. Sean Mc Manus. President, Irish National Caucus,
Washington, D.C.
Letters to the Editor. Irish News. Belfast. Tuesday, November 28, 2023
If there were clauses in the unwritten, uncodified British constitution prohibiting black people or Jews from being king or queen of England, every political party in Ireland, north and south, would rush to condemn it (as they should, and I would be the first).
Yet, on May 6, 2023, King Charles in his coronation proudly swore before God and the entire world that he would uphold and defend “Protestant succession to the throne” – in other words, no Catholics need apply.
And yet, despite this in-your-face crude and appalling bigotry and anti-Catholicism, not one political leader in Ireland, north or south, publicly demurred. Not one said that such constitutionally-enshrined hatred is wrong in principle – especially its fruit in Ireland.
Oppression is complete when people internalize/accept the contempt of the oppressor.
And, to make sure his meaning would not be missed, the king’s own website before his coronation spelled it out: “The Act [of Settlement 1701] laid down that only Protestant descendants… are eligible to succeed. Subsequent Acts have confirmed this. Parliament, under the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement, also laid down various conditions which the sovereign must meet. A Roman Catholic is specifically excluded from succession to the throne. The sovereign must, in addition, be in communion with the Church of England and must swear to preserve the established Church of England and the established Church of Scotland. The sovereign must also promise to uphold the Protestant succession.”
(www.royal.uk/encyclopedia/succession)
The Bill of Rights 1689 states that should monarchs convert to Roman Catholicism, they immediately and automatically cease to be monarchs (“be forever incapable to inherit, possess, or enjoy the Crown”) and that the subjects are absolved from their allegiance.
Imagine the brazen hypocrisy of such a title “Bill of Rights” that by name excludes and demonizes Catholics – the largest Christian Church in the history of the world – and that King Charles proudly swore to defend it in 2023. If it were not so deadly serious for its implications in Northern Ireland (justifying anti-Catholic discrimination), it would be almost laughable.
And so, it will continue for as long as there is an established Church (meaning no separation between Church and State) in England, with the monarch its automatic governor. And yet, despite all this, England succeeded in presenting Ireland as Church-dominated, when in fact, and in its highest laws and constitution, England itself is a sort of theocracy.
26.
March 1, 2024
IRISH CONGRESSIONAL BRIEFING
Distributed to Congress by Irish National Caucus
“The Northern Ireland High Court has ruled that the despised Legacy Act is incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. This is a huge embarrassment to ‘The King-in-Parliament’—King Charles III and the British Parliament—who created this monstrosity … Empire Hubris is difficult to shed even after 854 years of dominating Ireland—and counting.”—Fr. Sean McManus.
Focus on London’s folly. By John Manley
Irish News. Belfast. Thursday, February 29, 2024
IN SO many ways, the High Court ruling was to be expected.
Since this legacy legislation was first tabled under Boris Johnson’s premiership, countless organizations, politicians, and lawyers have warned that it was ill-advised and fundamentally flawed.
The main legal argument, alongside the moral and ethical challenges, was that the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 was incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Mr. Justice Colton has confirmed that.
The controversial legislation and the associated operations of the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery (ICRIR) are likely to be dependent on an appeal hearing. It’s unclear where the ruling may ultimately leave inquests, due to end on May 1, once again leaving many families frustrated and angry.
The ramifications of the ruling are manifold. It places huge pressure on Sir Declan Morgan, who made it his mission to ensure the ICRIR’s processes were ECHR – and by extension Good Friday Agreement – compliant.
Compatibility with the convention was at the Agreement’s core, he told this newspaper in August last year, and that in its absence, the body he controversially chose to head up wouldn’t work.
In a brief response, the IC-RIR effectively cherry-picked the ruling, highlighting that the judge had found it to be “properly and lawfully established” and capable of carrying out ECHR-compliant investigations.
It said it would study the judgment and reflect on its findings.
The Tories have always been brazen in their approach to this legislation, which was largely motivated by a desire to placate veterans who claimed to be the subject of “vexatious” prosecutions. Secretary of State Chris Heaton-Harris sought to play down the implications of the judge’s conclusions, but he must surely sense that the British government’s unilateral approach is running out of road.
His Labor counterpart Hilary Benn has rightly questioned how the ICRIR is sustainable under these circumstances, increasing the expectation that the Labor government will repeal the legislation once in power, as previously indicated by its leader.
Foreign Affairs Minister Micheál Martin, who previously said the Irish government had “reluctantly” challenged its nearest neighbor with an inter-state action, said he wasn’t surprised by the outcome, which he said “reflects and underpins” Dublin’s course of action.
It can be assumed that the Irish government would much rather see this issue resolved internally, rather than having to engage in an arduous action that could sour relations with Britain at a time when they are only beginning to recover from the Brexit fallout.
As for victims and survivors, they are yet again left in limbo, with neither action being taken that they oppose nor processes they can support. It’s a disparate sector in which people from very different backgrounds and allegiances aim for a variety of often conflicting outcomes. However, they are united in their opposition to a process that effectively disregarded their desire for justice and instead seemingly sought foremost to protect the state.
Talk of the ICRIR’s demise may be premature but this is clearly a setback and an opportune time to recalibrate and refocus a process that, despite all the assurances, was never victim-centered.
Eames-Bradly and subsequently, Stormont House set out templates for dealing with the past but for a variety of reasons never fulfilled their aim. If the Tories misguided endeavors of the past few years have taught us anything, it’s that widespread support and buy-in are necessary if a process is to succeed. Regrettably, those prerequisites are arguably as elusive as truth itself.
Distributed to Congress by Irish National Caucus
“The Northern Ireland High Court has ruled that the despised Legacy Act is incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. This is a huge embarrassment to ‘The King-in-Parliament’—King Charles III and the British Parliament—who created this monstrosity … Empire Hubris is difficult to shed even after 854 years of dominating Ireland—and counting.”—Fr. Sean McManus.
Focus on London’s folly. By John Manley
Irish News. Belfast. Thursday, February 29, 2024
IN SO many ways, the High Court ruling was to be expected.
Since this legacy legislation was first tabled under Boris Johnson’s premiership, countless organizations, politicians, and lawyers have warned that it was ill-advised and fundamentally flawed.
The main legal argument, alongside the moral and ethical challenges, was that the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 was incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Mr. Justice Colton has confirmed that.
The controversial legislation and the associated operations of the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery (ICRIR) are likely to be dependent on an appeal hearing. It’s unclear where the ruling may ultimately leave inquests, due to end on May 1, once again leaving many families frustrated and angry.
The ramifications of the ruling are manifold. It places huge pressure on Sir Declan Morgan, who made it his mission to ensure the ICRIR’s processes were ECHR – and by extension Good Friday Agreement – compliant.
Compatibility with the convention was at the Agreement’s core, he told this newspaper in August last year, and that in its absence, the body he controversially chose to head up wouldn’t work.
In a brief response, the IC-RIR effectively cherry-picked the ruling, highlighting that the judge had found it to be “properly and lawfully established” and capable of carrying out ECHR-compliant investigations.
It said it would study the judgment and reflect on its findings.
The Tories have always been brazen in their approach to this legislation, which was largely motivated by a desire to placate veterans who claimed to be the subject of “vexatious” prosecutions. Secretary of State Chris Heaton-Harris sought to play down the implications of the judge’s conclusions, but he must surely sense that the British government’s unilateral approach is running out of road.
His Labor counterpart Hilary Benn has rightly questioned how the ICRIR is sustainable under these circumstances, increasing the expectation that the Labor government will repeal the legislation once in power, as previously indicated by its leader.
Foreign Affairs Minister Micheál Martin, who previously said the Irish government had “reluctantly” challenged its nearest neighbor with an inter-state action, said he wasn’t surprised by the outcome, which he said “reflects and underpins” Dublin’s course of action.
It can be assumed that the Irish government would much rather see this issue resolved internally, rather than having to engage in an arduous action that could sour relations with Britain at a time when they are only beginning to recover from the Brexit fallout.
As for victims and survivors, they are yet again left in limbo, with neither action being taken that they oppose nor processes they can support. It’s a disparate sector in which people from very different backgrounds and allegiances aim for a variety of often conflicting outcomes. However, they are united in their opposition to a process that effectively disregarded their desire for justice and instead seemingly sought foremost to protect the state.
Talk of the ICRIR’s demise may be premature but this is clearly a setback and an opportune time to recalibrate and refocus a process that, despite all the assurances, was never victim-centered.
Eames-Bradly and subsequently, Stormont House set out templates for dealing with the past but for a variety of reasons never fulfilled their aim. If the Tories misguided endeavors of the past few years have taught us anything, it’s that widespread support and buy-in are necessary if a process is to succeed. Regrettably, those prerequisites are arguably as elusive as truth itself.
27.
APRIL 30, 2024
IRISH CONGRESSIONAL BRIEFING
Distributed to Congress by Irish National Caucus
“Although the amnesty also applies to others, everyone knows it’s all about British soldiers and British agents, and their political bosses. In other words, it’s all about the King-in-Parliament, or the Crown-in-Parliament, to use the official, formal language.” —Fr. Sean McManus.
Inquests into 11 killings are halted on eve of Legacy Act
By Connla Young. Irish News. Belfast. Tuesday, April 30, 2024.
INQUESTS into the deaths of 11 people during the Troubles have all but ended prematurely with the introduction of the British government’s Legacy Act.
Coroners sitting in three inquests delivered their findings to relatives yesterday.
The latest blow to truth recovery comes as the curtain is set to fall on long-standing legal mechanisms for investigating the past.
From tomorrow all civil cases and inquests that are not at their findings will be halted. Cases will be transferred to the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery (ICRIR). Many victims and bereaved relatives are strongly opposed to the ICRIR and believe it is designed to protect state participants from accountability.
In recent weeks several high-profile inquests linked to collusion allegations have been halted by coroners amid concerns over a failure by state bodies to disclose key information.
Legacy inquests are generally the subject of applications by state bodies for redactions to sensitive documents under public interest immunity (PII). State agencies use such certificates to withhold information.
In recent weeks Secretary of State Chris Heaton-Harris has launched legal action in several cases over decisions by coroners to provide gists, or limited summaries, of sensitive information.
Yesterday, a coroner in the inquest of nine people killed in the 1980s said the legal process was “not viable”.
Known as the Stalker/Sampson series, they involved the RUC shooting of unarmed republicans Gervais McKerr (31), Eugene Toman (21) and Sean Burns (21) near Lurgan, Co Armagh on November 11, 1982.
Their killings were the first of six operations carried out by the same RUC unit in north Armagh over a five-week period four decades ago.
The shootings were investigated by former Greater Manchester Police deputy chief constable John Stalker.
The killing of Catholic teenager Michael Tighe (17) at a hay shed near Craigavon was also under examination.
Weeks later on December 12, INLA members Seamus Grew (30) and Roddy Carroll (21), also unarmed, were shot dead at Killylea Road outside Armagh.
Toman and Burns were suspected of being involved in an IRA bomb attack at Kinnego Embankment, near Lurgan, that claimed the lives of RUC officers Sean Quinn (37), Paul Hamilton (26), and Allan McCloy (34), on October 27, 1982.
The attack on the three officers is also being investigated by Operation Kenova.
In a provisional ruling, coroner Mr. Justice O’Hara said he was unable to complete the PII process in all the cases and that his “provisional view is that these inquests cannot adequately investigate the deaths where such disclosure is withheld.”
Outside court, Fearghál Shiels of Madden and Finucane Solicitors said: “We do not accept that the coroner is in a position to lawfully determine that an inquest into the deaths of Gervaise McKerr, Eugene Toman, and Sean Burns is not viable as the coroner has not yet conducted any examination of the sensitive materials which underpin the incident relating to those deaths.
“The coroner has considered only the sensitive materials relating to the explosion at Kinnego.
“To decide that inquests cannot proceed for this reason is premature and speculative, and may be subject to a legal challenge.”
An inquest into the death of Sam Marshall (31), shot by two masked UVF men seconds upon leaving Lurgan RUC station after signing bail on March 7 1990, has also been stopped. His brother-in-law Tony McCaughey and prominent Lurgan republican Colin Duffy were with him at the time but escaped injury. Collusion is suspected in the case.
Coroner Philip Gilpin said it was clear from inquest papers that the three men were under British army surveillance and were followed by two soldiers on foot when they left the station.
Upholding PII applications by state agencies, he added that he cannot hold “an adequate inquest into the death” of Mr. Marshall but said he will be writing to the secretary of state inviting him to consider a public inquiry.
Mr. Marshall’s brother, John Marshall, said the “development comes as no surprise” to his family.
“We recently received so-called sensitive disclosure which makes clear that when our brother Sam first appeared in court in January 1990 seeking bail for low-level possession of ammunition charges that an undercover soldier and a Special Branch officer appeared in the same court to familiarize themselves with Sam’s physical appearance,” he said.
“For the next two months, Sam was followed twice weekly to and from Lurgan police station in order to sign bail whilst under intense surveillance from undercover soldiers.”
Mr. Marshall said 11 undercover soldiers were operating in an area around the station when his brother was killed.
“Two armed loyalist gunmen were allowed to easily infiltrate the area patrolled by heavily armed soldiers and shoot Sam dead and make good their getaway,” he said.
“The guns used to murder Sam were imported into Ireland by loyalist gun runners who were also paid British agents.
“Anyone with any knowledge of this case will know why the British government will want to stop this case in its tracks because it stinks of collusion from the high heavens and it demands the explanations that the government has fought hard for the last 34 years to hide.”
Another inquest halted yesterday was that of former republican prisoner Seamus Dillon (45), shot dead by the LVF as he worked on the door at the Glengannon Hotel, near Dungannon, in December 1997.
His widow is a lead case in a High Court challenge against the Legacy Act.
It emerged during the hearing that the PII process had not been completed and Coroner Richard Greene said it was his provisional view that it is impossible to hold an inquest.
He placed on record that it was a “very great personal and professional disappointment” that he was unable to complete the inquest” and described the death of Mr. Dillon as “brutal and wholly unnecessary murder of a wholly innocent man.”
After the hearing, Mrs. Dillon said she felt “a bit deflated”.
“I’ll fight until I get the answers, until I get the truth and justice that my husband is entitled to,” she added.
Outside court. her solicitor Gavin Booth of Phoenix Law said his client does not believe the ICRIR “can be capable of discharging the obligations”.
“The only option now is a public inquiry, given it’s the same suspects, ballistics and murder gang,” he said.
“As a matter of course if there’s an inquiry in one there should be an inquiry in Dillon.”
28.
MAY 2, 2024
NEITHER KING NOR PARLIAMENT CAN BE EXCUSED FROM CRIMES IN IRELAND
IRISH CONGRESSIONAL BRIEFING
Distributed to Congress by the Irish National Caucus
September 22, 2023.
The formal phrase “King in Parliament” (or Monarch in Parliament or Crown in Parliament) is used to describe the British legislature, composed of the Sovereign, the House of Lords, and the House of Commons.
Thus, for Bills to become law (an Act) the King must give his Royal Assent. So, for example, the shameful and universally opposed Legacy Bill could not have become the Legacy Act without the collusion of King Charles III. Therefore, let no one try to tell you that the King of England has no real power—he most certainly has.
Had King Charles’ great-grandfather King George V not given his Royal Assent on December 23, 1920, to the Partition of Ireland, it could not have become law.
Therefore, it can be properly said that both King Charles III and King George V colluded in a profoundly undemocratic and unjust crimes against Ireland—like so many of their predecessors.
And, yet, one the greatest con-jobs of all time is that the Monarchs of England have succeeded in giving the impression that they are totally above the fray, sweetly uninvolved, and just wishing things had been different. So, for example, Charles on his first visit as King to Northern Ireland, piously bemoaned about, “those whom history had separated.”
No, Your Majesty, “history” did not do that. Your great-grand father did that, along with your Parliament. … Just like YOU give your Royal Assent to the shameful Legacy Bill turning it into an Act …Just like You blatantly and blithely swore YOUR anti-Catholic Coronation Oath as required by the unwritten and uncodified British Constitution.
History did not do that deed of “separation.” YOU did it.
Therefore, it can be properly said that both King Charles III and King George V colluded in a profoundly undemocratic and unjust crimes against Ireland—like so many of their predecessors.
And, yet, one the greatest con-jobs of all time is that the Monarchs of England have succeeded in giving the impression that they are totally above the fray, sweetly uninvolved, and just wishing things had been different. So, for example, Charles on his first visit as King to Northern Ireland, piously bemoaned about, “those whom history had separated.”
No, Your Majesty, “history” did not do that. Your great-grand father did that, along with your Parliament. … Just like YOU give your Royal Assent to the shameful Legacy Bill turning it into an Act …Just like You blatantly and blithely swore YOUR anti-Catholic Coronation Oath as required by the unwritten and uncodified British Constitution.
History did not do that deed of “separation.” YOU did it.
Collusion of the Church of England
But the Coronation Ceremony, also, laid bare the complicity of the Church of England in this great sin of Catholic exclusion, banning, and demonization.
The Royal Family website laid out the role of the Church of England and other participating Church Ministers in the Coronation in its “The Coronation Service – Order of Service”— “Today’s service draws on that long tradition, set once again within the context of the Eucharist, which is the defining act of worship for the Church universal.”
Therefore, the Coronation is not just a civic ceremony but a religious one… And exclusion and bigotry in the context of the Eucharist is particularly shocking, if not sacrilegious and blasphemous.
How can the Church of England and the other Ministers who played an active role in administering the Anti-Catholic Coronation Oath possibly justify their action because the Eucharist is meant to be “a sacrament of love, a sign of unity, a bond of charity.” … Yet, the very law—the highest law in England and in the British constitution—which governs the Coronation, brazenly, proudly, and by name, excludes Catholics—the oldest and largest Christian faith in the history of the world?
Divine Right of Kings Blasphemy
Finally, the script for administering the Anti-Catholic oath seems to tacitly condone the awful history of England’s colonialism and the discredited blasphemy of the “divine right of Kings.” Just one example: The Anglican Archbishop says: “WILL you solemnly promise and swear to govern the Peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland…” and, “BE your head anointed with holy oil, …so may you be anointed, blessed, and consecrated King over the peoples, whom the Lord your God has given you to rule and govern.”
How, in the name of God, could the Archbishop utter words like that? God never gave Ireland, or any part thereof, to any King of England—nor, indeed, did God give any country in the previous British Empire to England. England stole it all— by international terrorism, racism, sectarianism, genocide, socially engineered famines, rape, and plunder.
Time to build up The Beloved Community—as advocated by Blessed Martin Luther King, Jr.— in Ireland, north, south, east, and west.
That can never happen under England’s rule. We have 854 years of proof of that.
29.
MAY 2, 2024
RISH CONGRESSIONAL BRIEFING
Distributed to Congress by Irish National Caucus
“United opposition to the King-in-Parliament Legacy Act. Effective and dedicated Belfast campaigner Ciaran MacAirt puts it perfectly in this Belfast Telegraph article: ‘Britain is a serial human rights abuser but this blatant attack on our basic human rights would embarrass tin-pot dictators in the so-called Third World.’ Both King Charles III and the Tory Party are to blame.”—Fr. Sean McManus.
Troubles victims stage protest against Legacy Act outside NIO in Belfast
Brett Campbell. Belfast Telegraph. Wednesday, May 1, 2024
Victims and survivors of the Troubles are staging a protest outside the Northern Ireland Office in Belfast to voice their opposition to the "disgraceful" Legacy Act.
Time for Truth demonstrators have gathered outside Erskine House in the city center on the day that the part of the legislation stopping historical inquests comes into force. Sinn Fein MP John Finucane is expected to deliver the keynote address. Campaign spokesperson, Ciarán MacAirt, said the rally has been planned to take place “on the day that the British government has denied us equal access to due process of the law.”
“Britain is a serial human rights abuser but this blatant attack on our basic human rights would embarrass tin-pot dictators in the so-called Third World,” he added. “Our families have been campaigning tirelessly for over six years for the implementation of the Stormont House Agreement and a proper human rights-compliant means for dealing with the legacy of the past. Britain, though, wants to bury its war crimes in Ireland and protect its killers.
"Its Legacy Act is an assault on our basic human rights and an affront to the rule of law. It re-traumatizes victims and survivors across the community.” Activists are demanding “the repeal of the Act of Shame in its entirety.”
“We reject any attempt by the British state to dress up the likes of the so-called Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery as a substitute for a proper, Article 2-compliant pathway to truth and justice,” Mr. MacAirt added.
“Join us and show your support for the families and our basic human rights outside the NIO offices in Belfast city center.” It comes as SDLP leader Colum Eastwood insisted the campaign to provide truth, justice, and accountability for victims and survivors "is far from over." The Foyle MP vowed to continue to work with the Labor Party at Westminster to have the act repealed and replaced as soon "as the Tories are removed from power." "This immoral Tory government's attempt to shut down routes to justice for victims and their families cannot be allowed to succeed," Mr Eastwood added. "My thoughts are with those across the North today who have been left feeling hopeless and despondent that their pursuit of justice has ended. "My message to them is clear - this is not over. This legislation is an insult to the memory of those who were murdered during the Troubles."We will never reckon with our past by closing down the path to truth and justice. This legislation is an outrageous attempt by the British government to cover up the actions of the state and to protect their dirty secrets." Mr. Eastwood said human rights organizations, the Irish Government, and all political parties in the NI have been united in their opposition to the legislation. "And still the British government continued on regardless, without a care for the harm they would cause," he continued. "Since this legislation was announced the SDLP has been working with our colleagues at Westminster and in the Labor Party to build a coalition of opposition to this bill. "We have received assurances that Labor will repeal the legislation if they form the next government and Iwelcome the public commitment from Shadow Secretary of State Hilary Benn today. "The election can't come soon enough for those of us who want to wrench this rotten government from power and begin the work of undoing 14 years of damage to our entire society." Mr. Benn has pledged that a future Labor government would restore legacy inquests and the ability for Troubles victims to bring civil cases. The shadow Northern Ireland secretary said he would not scrap a new truth recovery body set up to investigate unresolved Troubles deaths but wanted to see if it could command the confidence of victims' families.
Victims and survivors of the Troubles are staging a protest outside the Northern Ireland Office in Belfast to voice their opposition to the "disgraceful" Legacy Act.
Time for Truth demonstrators have gathered outside Erskine House in the city center on the day that the part of the legislation stopping historical inquests comes into force. Sinn Fein MP John Finucane is expected to deliver the keynote address. Campaign spokesperson, Ciarán MacAirt, said the rally has been planned to take place “on the day that the British government has denied us equal access to due process of the law.”
“Britain is a serial human rights abuser but this blatant attack on our basic human rights would embarrass tin-pot dictators in the so-called Third World,” he added. “Our families have been campaigning tirelessly for over six years for the implementation of the Stormont House Agreement and a proper human rights-compliant means for dealing with the legacy of the past. Britain, though, wants to bury its war crimes in Ireland and protect its killers.
"Its Legacy Act is an assault on our basic human rights and an affront to the rule of law. It re-traumatizes victims and survivors across the community.” Activists are demanding “the repeal of the Act of Shame in its entirety.”
“We reject any attempt by the British state to dress up the likes of the so-called Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery as a substitute for a proper, Article 2-compliant pathway to truth and justice,” Mr. MacAirt added.
“Join us and show your support for the families and our basic human rights outside the NIO offices in Belfast city center.” It comes as SDLP leader Colum Eastwood insisted the campaign to provide truth, justice, and accountability for victims and survivors "is far from over." The Foyle MP vowed to continue to work with the Labor Party at Westminster to have the act repealed and replaced as soon "as the Tories are removed from power." "This immoral Tory government's attempt to shut down routes to justice for victims and their families cannot be allowed to succeed," Mr Eastwood added. "My thoughts are with those across the North today who have been left feeling hopeless and despondent that their pursuit of justice has ended. "My message to them is clear - this is not over. This legislation is an insult to the memory of those who were murdered during the Troubles."We will never reckon with our past by closing down the path to truth and justice. This legislation is an outrageous attempt by the British government to cover up the actions of the state and to protect their dirty secrets." Mr. Eastwood said human rights organizations, the Irish Government, and all political parties in the NI have been united in their opposition to the legislation. "And still the British government continued on regardless, without a care for the harm they would cause," he continued. "Since this legislation was announced the SDLP has been working with our colleagues at Westminster and in the Labor Party to build a coalition of opposition to this bill. "We have received assurances that Labor will repeal the legislation if they form the next government and Iwelcome the public commitment from Shadow Secretary of State Hilary Benn today. "The election can't come soon enough for those of us who want to wrench this rotten government from power and begin the work of undoing 14 years of damage to our entire society." Mr. Benn has pledged that a future Labor government would restore legacy inquests and the ability for Troubles victims to bring civil cases. The shadow Northern Ireland secretary said he would not scrap a new truth recovery body set up to investigate unresolved Troubles deaths but wanted to see if it could command the confidence of victims' families.
30.
MAY 4, 2024
IRISH CONGRESSIONAL BRIEFING Distributed to Congress by Irish National Caucus "The Legacy Act of the King-in-Parliament is exactly that an act of King Charles and the Tories. Done in their interest, not in the interest of the Protestants and Catholics of Northern Ireland ... And, thus, it has always been. The formal phrase 'King in Parliament' (or Monarch in Parliament or Crown in Parliament) is officially used to describe the British legislature, composed of the Sovereign, the House of Lords, and the House of Commons ... And that says it all."- Fr. Sean McManus. Law designed to bury State's Troubles roleBy Connla Young. Irish News. Belfast. Saturday, May 4, 2024.
The shutting down of all legal avenues for Troubles-linked incidents will be seen by many as a show of contempt for those who suffered unbearable loss during the Troubles.
But for others, it is more than just a demonstration of disregard for the pain and suffering endured by thousands of people over the past five decades.
Many, especially in the nationalist community, but not exclusively, can see beyond the cold eye cast in their direction by the British establishment. For them, the decision by the British state to close all legacy investigations is seen as a cynical bid to bury the part their forces played during the years of conflict.
In recent years a steady stream of reports from the Police Ombudsman’s office have concluded that “collusive behavior” existed between loyalist killer gangs, the RUC, and elements of the British army. Numerous reports by the ombudsman and other investigators reveal a web of collusion, and what some believe amounts to a cover-up, during the Troubles.
For many, the issue of collusion remains at the heart of the state’s winding down of legacy mechanisms over recent months. While Tory ministers initially insisted action needed to be taken to protect their soldiers from prosecution, many believe the desire to hide the part of state actors in murder is their main motivation.
As this week’s Legacy Law deadline neared, more potentially damaging information began to emerge from dozens of inquests that were ongoing. As part of the coronial process, state bodies are required to provide "disclosure" or information relevant to proceedings. However, in Troubles cases this process is often hampered by Public Interest Immunity (PII) applications. PII certificates are regularly sought by state bodies to withhold information they do not want the public to see. It is thought documents covered by PII have the potential to go to the heart of suspicions that state forces had a hand in sectarian murder and other serious incidents.
In recent weeks several inquests were abandoned after coroners concluded information necessary to establish how someone died was covered by PII. Attempts by several coroners to produce a gist, or limited summary, of sensitive information have been met by legal challenges driven by Secretary of State Chris Heaton-Harris.
The thread of collusion runs through each of the inquests at the center of this unprecedented intervention.
For many nationalists, the existence of collusion is proven, and they have no doubt the State acted with impunity.
For some relatives, attempts to conceal the role of State players further compound the acts of collusion, obstruction, and cover-up many have encountered.
Some will see the recent, almost desperate attempts by the state to withhold even small snippets of information as little more than an attempt to further pollute the truth recovery process.
31.
JUNE 11, 2024
IRISH CONGRESSIONAL BRIEFING
Distributed to Congress by Irish National Caucus
“As a public service, we publish this 2023 report by CBS News on King Charles’ wealth. After all, the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury —who administered the anti-Catholic Coronation Oath to King Charles in 2023— also solemnly announced in the ‘context of the Eucharist’ that God had given the people of Northern Ireland to the King to rule over … So, the poor in Northern Ireland, not to mention the poor in England, will be relieved the King is doing OK.”—Fr. Sean McManus.
King Charles III’s net worth — and where his wealth comes from https://www.cbsnews.com/news/king-charles-coronation-wealth-net-worth/ By Aimee Picchi. CBS News. Updated on: May 6, 2023 / 5:39 AM EDT / MoneyWatch
Edited By Anne Marie Lee, Alain Sherter. Updated on: May 6, 2023 / 5:39 AM EDT / MoneyWatch
Distributed to Congress by Irish National Caucus
“As a public service, we publish this 2023 report by CBS News on King Charles’ wealth. After all, the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury —who administered the anti-Catholic Coronation Oath to King Charles in 2023— also solemnly announced in the ‘context of the Eucharist’ that God had given the people of Northern Ireland to the King to rule over … So, the poor in Northern Ireland, not to mention the poor in England, will be relieved the King is doing OK.”—Fr. Sean McManus.
King Charles III’s net worth — and where his wealth comes from https://www.cbsnews.com/news/king-charles-coronation-wealth-net-worth/ By Aimee Picchi. CBS News. Updated on: May 6, 2023 / 5:39 AM EDT / MoneyWatch
Edited By Anne Marie Lee, Alain Sherter. Updated on: May 6, 2023 / 5:39 AM EDT / MoneyWatch
When King Charles III and his wife, the Queen Consort Camilla, are crowned on May 6, the coronation ceremony will glitter with the Crown Jewels and other historic symbols of the monarchy’s vast wealth.
King Charles’ net worth has soared to about $2.3 billion, according to The Guardian, which said it worked with 12 experts to undertake the first “comprehensive audit” of the king’s assets, which range from country estates to race cars and jewels.
Yet among his most valuable assets is something intangible: an exemption for Charles from the U.K.’s inheritance tax, which otherwise would have taken a 40% bite out of his inherited assets. Queen Elizabeth II was worth $500 million when she passed away last year, largely from her ownership of Balmoral Castle in Scotland and Sandringham House in England, as well as art, jewels, investments and real estate, Forbes estimated last year.
Not everyone pegs Charles’ wealth at the same sky-high valuation as The Guardian. The U.K.’s Sunday Times estimated his net worth at about $750 million. Part of the challenge in assessing the king’s wealth is that many of his financial holdings aren’t publicly disclosed, while other assets that may appear to be owned by the monarchy are in fact property of the U.K., the Guardian noted.
Live coverage of the coronation will begin at 5 a.m. Eastern time on May 6, available on CBS television stations or streaming live on CBS News and on your mobile or streaming device
Here’s what we know about King Charles’ wealth.
King Charles’ net worth has soared to about $2.3 billion, according to The Guardian, which said it worked with 12 experts to undertake the first “comprehensive audit” of the king’s assets, which range from country estates to race cars and jewels.
Yet among his most valuable assets is something intangible: an exemption for Charles from the U.K.’s inheritance tax, which otherwise would have taken a 40% bite out of his inherited assets. Queen Elizabeth II was worth $500 million when she passed away last year, largely from her ownership of Balmoral Castle in Scotland and Sandringham House in England, as well as art, jewels, investments and real estate, Forbes estimated last year.
Not everyone pegs Charles’ wealth at the same sky-high valuation as The Guardian. The U.K.’s Sunday Times estimated his net worth at about $750 million. Part of the challenge in assessing the king’s wealth is that many of his financial holdings aren’t publicly disclosed, while other assets that may appear to be owned by the monarchy are in fact property of the U.K., the Guardian noted.
Live coverage of the coronation will begin at 5 a.m. Eastern time on May 6, available on CBS television stations or streaming live on CBS News and on your mobile or streaming device
Here’s what we know about King Charles’ wealth.
The Duchy of Lancaster: $820 million
The duchy consists of a private estate owned by the monarch that spans about 45,000 acres across England and Wales, ranging from castles such as Lancaster Castle to commercial properties in London’s Savoy precinct.
The estate provided Queen Elizabeth with profits of almost $140 million in the five years before her death, the Guardian noted. The assets of the sprawling group of properties is worth about $820 million, it estimated.
The estate provided Queen Elizabeth with profits of almost $140 million in the five years before her death, the Guardian noted. The assets of the sprawling group of properties is worth about $820 million, it estimated.
Private jewels: $670 million
A 94.4-carat pear-cut diamond will be featured in the crown worn by Camilla, the Queen Consort, in the coronation — representing just one of the jewels privately owned by Queen Elizabeth that are now among Charles’ possessions, according to The Guardian.
Together, the 54 privately owned jewels are worth about $670 million, the Guardian estimated. The diamond that will be in Camilla’s crown is one of two gems called the “the Lesser Stars of Africa,” which are both usually in a brooch that The Guardian estimates could be worth more than $226 million.
The Crown Jewels — many of which will be displayed during the coronation — are owned by the state and aren’t part of Charles’ wealth.
Together, the 54 privately owned jewels are worth about $670 million, the Guardian estimated. The diamond that will be in Camilla’s crown is one of two gems called the “the Lesser Stars of Africa,” which are both usually in a brooch that The Guardian estimates could be worth more than $226 million.
The Crown Jewels — many of which will be displayed during the coronation — are owned by the state and aren’t part of Charles’ wealth.
Balmoral and Sandringham: $415 million
Charles inherited Balmoral, the Scottish estate where Queen Elizabeth passed away last year, and Sandringham, an estate in Norfolk, from his mother.
Balmoral, with 53,000 acres of land, is valued at $100 million, while Sandringham, which includes farmland and rental properties, is worth $315 million.
Other royal haunts of the monarchy, such as Buckingham Palace and Kensington Palace, aren’t actually properties of the king, but are owned by the state.
Balmoral, with 53,000 acres of land, is valued at $100 million, while Sandringham, which includes farmland and rental properties, is worth $315 million.
Other royal haunts of the monarchy, such as Buckingham Palace and Kensington Palace, aren’t actually properties of the king, but are owned by the state.
Race horses, a stamp collection and art: $190 million
Queen Elizabeth owned about 70 thoroughbreds, which The Guardian valued at $34 million.
The monarch also owns a stamp collection, called the Royal Philatelic Collection, which is considered one of the finest in the world, the newspaper noted. It includes rare stamps from Laos, Canada and other nations, valued at $125 million.
BRITAIN-ROYALS-PHILATELIC-VISIT
Art by artists including Monet, Chagall and Dalí are worth another $30 million, the publication said.
The monarch also owns a stamp collection, called the Royal Philatelic Collection, which is considered one of the finest in the world, the newspaper noted. It includes rare stamps from Laos, Canada and other nations, valued at $125 million.
BRITAIN-ROYALS-PHILATELIC-VISIT
Art by artists including Monet, Chagall and Dalí are worth another $30 million, the publication said.
Investments: $180 million
King Charles also likely has significant wealth in stocks and other investments, according to The Guardian. It estimates those holdings at $180 million, based on 1993 research into the royal family’s shares of FTSE 100 companies. If the monarch had continued to hold those investments, they would be worth $150 million today, the paper said.
Assuming that the crown’s private income has been socked away in the stock market throughout the years, it’s likely that the king has at least $180 million in stock and other investments, it noted.
Assuming that the crown’s private income has been socked away in the stock market throughout the years, it’s likely that the king has at least $180 million in stock and other investments, it noted.
Rolls-Royces, Bentleys and other cars: $8 million
The Guardian said it identified 23 cars at the Royal Mews at Buckingham Palace and Sandringham, although not all of them belong privately to Charles.
Among the privately own cars are a 1950 Rolls-Royce Phantom IV, one of only 18 made by the manufacturer, and which was bought by Queen Elizabeth and her husband Prince Philip before she was coronated. The car is worth about $3 million, the Guardian estimated. It also estimated the value of the king’s privately owned cars at $8 million.
Among the privately own cars are a 1950 Rolls-Royce Phantom IV, one of only 18 made by the manufacturer, and which was bought by Queen Elizabeth and her husband Prince Philip before she was coronated. The car is worth about $3 million, the Guardian estimated. It also estimated the value of the king’s privately owned cars at $8 million.
Read Fr. Sean McManus’ inspiring story ...
His life-long struggle for justice in Northern Ireland.
Order your copies of "My American struggle for Justice in Northern Ireland--Third U.S. Edition 2019— as well as "Mac Ireland series: Books One, 2 and 3."
Order your copies of "My American struggle for Justice in Northern Ireland--Third U.S. Edition 2019— as well as "Mac Ireland series: Books One, 2 and 3."