Perception Management of King Charles III ....

King Charles III seems to be a harmless latecomer to the throne of the United Kingdom, because as perception is currently received, King Charles III is but an aging and eccentric individual whose is monarch by the grace of the current Members of Parliament at Westminster. But if you believe any of that, except for the bit about his age and eccentricity, you would be wrong in your perception of real life in 2022 as lived.

We should begin by addressing the numbers after the name of Charles Windsor, and then take a detailed look at the throne upon which he has now been told to occupy.

His mother, Queen Elizabeth II was only the second Queen Elizabeth to occupy the throne of the Kingdom of England, because there had never been a previous Queen Elizabeth who occupied the throne of the Kingdom of Scotland.

However, Queen Elizabeth II became Queen of the United Kingdom, and not Queen of two individual kingdoms, and her mother Elizabeth Angela Marguerite Bowes-Lyon was Queen of the United Kingdom from December 1936 to February 1952, and as the wife of King George VI, she was the first Queen Elizabeth of the United Kingdom. But when her daughter, who was also the daughter of the deceased King George VI became Queen, she did indeed become Queen Elizabeth II.

But this is where Charles runs into a problem because there had never, ever been a King Charles I, nor a King Charles II of the United Kingdom. Charles Windsor, son of Queen Elizabeth II, was the first King Charles to sit upon the throne of the United Kingdom. This is where perception of the monarchy becomes a deliberately confused mess.

The supporters of Scottish Independence refer to the merger of the Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of Scotland to create the Kingdom of Scotland when complaining that Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom was only the first Queen of the Kingdom of Scotland, but that is of course a lie. There was no Kingdom of Scotland in 1952, and that is when Queen Elizabeth II took to the throne. But there had been a Queen Elizabeth I of the United Kingdom, and she was the mother of Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom.

So why is the present, and as yet un-coronated King Charles calling himself the third when numbers one and two never existed? Well, this is where the folks who want to reestablish the Kingdom of Scotland, if only temporarily to untangle it from its union with the Kingdom of England, then come out to play with past of events of yesterdays gone by.

To understand this mess, it is necessary to look back to when King VI of Scotland went down to London, England and created an anomaly. Because this same human being then became King James I of England, while still ruling the Kingdom of Scotland. There were two separate kingdoms, not one kingdom.

But the Privy Councils of both kingdoms had to keep their King James I of England who was originally King James VI of Scotland, and separately retained his occupation of that throne, from trying to promote himself as the King of Great Britain. That is the geographical name for the main island that both England and Scotland occupy.

After James his son took over, and he had a go at calling himself the King of Great Britain But since there was no such kingdom, he not only failed, but he made a lot of people very angry: so, in 1649 they chopped his head off.

Then the Kingdom of England morphed into a kind of military dictatorship as a quasi-republic. But up north, the Kingdom of Scotland would have none of it, and so under the name of Covenanters, this group began to wage yet another in an ongoing series of civil wars aimed at the dictatorship based in London, England.

This time they were fighting against the man who emerged as a military dictator, and his name is Oliver Cromwell. When the Covenanters got hold of the son of the executed King Charles, they converged on Scone Palace in Scotland where the kings of Scotland had all been crowned.

Their idea was to crown him, King Charles II. So, the republican forces under Oliver Cromwell charged into Scotland and tried to arrest or kill this would-be Charles II.

But too late. When they got to Scone, the Covenanters who had also raised an army fled with their own King Charles II of Great Britain. Of course, he had been crowned king of a country that did not exist. His father had only been crowned King of England, and separately became King of Scotland. There never was a King Charles I of Great Britain.

In time, the Covenanters were defeated, and the former Kingdom of Scotland was merged into (for want of a simple name) the new Republic of England. So, Scotland, for a time, became a part of this same united republic. But then, Oliver Cromwell the dictator died, and Cromwell's son did not want the job.

Into that political void General George Monck rushed down from the territory of Scotland with his own army, and he placed the son of the executed King Charles on the throne in London as King Charles II. Monck then arranged for a coronation in England, but only a proclamation in Scotland.

Monck has switched sides and was well rewarded for being a traitor. Over in what would become the War for Independence led by George Washington, another General named Benedict Arnold who fought under General Washington, came to the erroneous conclusion that the American rebels would lose, so, adopting the code name of 'Monck' he too switched sides and fought for the British. Of course, the British lost and so did Arnold. He then went down in American history books as a traitor, while in British history books the real General Monck went down as a hero. But those events were all in the future.

To slam the lid of censorship upon the story of the British republic under Cromwell, Monck and his puppet Charles created a General Post Office (GPO) to weed out any disloyal communications. They also enacted a criminal law called an 'Act of Oblivion' to prevent anyone from referring to anything that took place between 1649 (when King Charles was executed), and 1660, which is when Monck placed Charles II on the throne of England.

Up in Scotland the independent Kingdom of Scotland was revived without a coronation. Then Charles II died, and his brother James was put on the throne in England as James II, but up in Scotland he was already James VII. That is up until 1688, because that is when the Dutch under William of Orange invaded England James had to flee when William and his wife Mary took over both thrones as well as the separate Kingdom of Ireland.

After William died, this mess resulted in the daughter of James who had fled, being put on the two independent thrones of England and Scotland. Then the long-touted 'merger' took place and Queen Anne became the last Queen of England and the last Queen of Scotland the first Queen of the Kingdom of Great Britain.

The year was 1707, and in 1776 when a German King George III occupied the throne once occupied by Anne, the thirteen North American colonies declared independence.

By the time that the calendar had moved on to 1801, the Kingdom of Great Britain then merged the former Kingdom of Ireland into its membership. The last big jump was in 1923, after most of Ireland had freed itself from the grip of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. It left behind only a handful of its northern counties under the control of London.

So now we come back to Charles III and ask: who is he?

He is not King Charles III of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland which has only existed since 1923, because that entity never had a King Charles I or a King Charles II.

So, who is he?

More important, with all of these various coup d'états taking place, who has really been running the show, and who is now running the show?

The answer is the highly secretive core of the Privy Council's Judiciary Committee. They control the money, and the money controls the legal system of 'might make right'.

Today this body hides behind a bogus past; the English laws creating the GPO and the 'Act of Oblivion' which is illogically smothered by the term 'Interregnum' Add to that the various 'Official Secrets Acts', and the forced creation of a broadcasting Trust which was replaced by a Crown corporation sole entity called the British Broadcasting Corporation. To manage all that the Crown hired John Reith, and Reith's dad was a minister or religion who seemed to love singing a song about the glories of the 'Covenanters'.

In short, the United Kingdom is a bogus entity whose creators became wealthy from an Empire that was built upon the backs of Black slavery. So much for 'Black Lives Matter', because neither 'Black' lives nor the majority of 'White' lives mattered when it came to the totally undemocratic and thuggish rulers of the British Empire. They accumulated wealth which enabled them to build stately homes and palaces, and those tourist destinations mockingly stand as a reminder of the real story behind the creation of the United Kingdom today, and of course its farce concerning its so-called King Charles III.