Henry the Eighth did not believe in human rights, he though of his subjects as pawns to do his bidding, and when he did not get his own way, as with Andrew's teddy-bears, he would throw a tantrum, changing laws and creating his own Church, to invent a new faith that would serve his lust for women, that surely would underpin the theory that Fembot sex robots have a place in society, to protect men from the laws of David Blunkett, allegedly made while under the influence of an extra marital affair, conflicting with the moral temperament to ensure that every man in Britain, enters a courtroom with the presumption of innocence.

They don't. Because of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, men enter a British Court, presumed guilty. A violation of Article 6. Investigating police officers are instructed to treat those accused as guilty, meaning that the crime scene and evidence is often compromised, such as to gain a conviction, even where evidence to the contrary exists, it is buried or not recorded.

INHERITANCE

Henry inherited a vast fortune and a prosperous economy from his father, who had been frugal. This fortune is estimated at £1,250,000 (the equivalent of £375 million today). By comparison, Henry's reign was a near disaster financially. He augmented the royal treasury by seizing church lands, but his heavy spending and long periods of mismanagement damaged the economy.

Henry spent much of his wealth on maintaining his court and household, including many of the building works he undertook on royal palaces. He hung 2,000 tapestries in his palaces; by comparison, James V of Scotland hung just 200. Henry took pride in showing off his collection of weapons, which included exotic archery equipment, 2,250 pieces of land ordnance and 6,500 handguns. Tudor monarchs had to fund all government expenses out of their own income. This income came from the Crown lands that Henry owned as well as from customs duties like tonnage and poundage, granted by parliament to the king for life. During Henry's reign the revenues of the Crown remained constant (around £100,000), but were eroded by inflation and rising prices brought about by war. Indeed, war and Henry's dynastic ambitions in Europe exhausted the surplus he had inherited from his father by the mid-1520s. Sound familiar?

Henry VII had not involved Parliament in his affairs very much, but Henry VIII had to turn to Parliament during his reign for money, in particular for grants of subsidies to fund his wars. The dissolution of the monasteries provided a means to replenish the treasury, and as a result, the Crown took possession of monastic lands worth £120,000 (£36 million) a year. The Crown had profited by a small amount in 1526 when Wolsey put England onto a gold, rather than silver, standard, and had debased the currency slightly. Cromwell debased the currency more significantly, starting in Ireland in 1540. The English pound halved in value against the Flemish pound between 1540 and 1551 as a result. The nominal profit made was significant, helping to bring income and expenditure together, but it had a catastrophic effect on the country's economy. In part, it helped to bring about a period of very high inflation from 1544 onwards.

PORTRAIT OF HENRY VII

A MORE AMENABLE FAITH

Where Henry VIII rebelled against the Catholic Church of Rome, he would not tolerate dissidents, proving himself to be a dictator and a hypocrite, in prosecuting those who dared to voice alternative views - mostly beheading them under the rule of treason. In such circumstances, and if there was a new land of opportunity, you might want to get into a boat and try and find a better life. 

In 1530, at Hampton Court Palace, King Henry VIII and his advisers penned a letter to Rome. In it, for the first time, Henry threatened to break with the Vatican and split off from the Catholic Church. As you might imagine, Rome probably thought he'd bitten off more than he could chew. But, four years later, in the 1534 Act of Supremacy, Henry carried through on that threat — and the Church of England was born (Lords spiritual and temporal). This may have influenced the likes of Adolf Hitler, for such political adulterations saw Henry become the ultimate dictator, something extremely hard to pull off in the 20th Century. Though the Fuhrer managed something reasonably closely aligned, and both dictators used extreme methods to eliminate political adversaries. In Henry's case the lopping of heads. The constitutional foundation for Hitler's dictatorship was the Enabling Act on March 24, 1933. It gave Hitler the right to pass any law without the approval of the Reichstag. In efforts to breed a master race, more than 300,000 German Aryans were sterilized and countless numbers were gassed, under a law passed on July 14, 1933, the "Law for the Prevention of Genetically Diseased Offspring." By comparison to Adolf, Henry was a relatively well balanced individual. Though, the eugenics concept did not originate with Mr Hitler, it was known as the American Way in the US and in England, there was a Eugenics Society. Adolf, merely industrialized such DNA cleansing in typical Germanic, and somewhat obsessive fashion. These atrocities gave us the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, that the United Kingdom has been slowly eroding ever since.

Henry's lust for young female conquests drove him to write and re-write laws that would enable his roving eye to bed many fair maidens, who under English law today, would be considered under the age of consent. But in his time, mistresses around twelve and over were prime-time and fair game, so presumably they were smarter than girls today (the opposite is true with the internet and soaps) as far as the law stands, and if they had not been eligible, judging by his statutory manipulations, they would have been declared so. Henry's weakness in this department led to six marriages and who knows how many mistresses along the way, though some are mentioned. His youngest official bride was the seventeen year old Catherine Howard.

Henry VIII created the Church of England in 1536 as a result of a dispute with the Pope, who would not permit Henry to get a divorce from his wife and marry his long-time mistress. Henry's marital history started under a cloud of suspicion, as his marriage to Catherine of Aragon meant he was forming a union with his brother's widow. Whether his series of divorces was actually the result of his failure to produce a male heir or some other form of instability is a matter of some dispute, but the reason for forming the Anglican Church was to give Henry the right to act as the head of his own ceremonies and marry as he pleased.

OFF WITH HIS HEAD

During the reign of Henry VIII, between 1509 and 1547, an estimated 57,000 English subjects lost their heads - at the rate of 4.34 subjects a day. It was a violent time in history, but Henry VIII may have been particularly bloodthirsty, executing tens of thousands during his 36-year reign. By comparison, the daughter who succeeded him on the throne, who came to be called "Bloody Mary," killed fewer than 300 people during her six years as queen. Only 50 executions a year, or one a week to satisfy her bloodlust, compared to 30 a week under Henry. England could hardly be described as merry.

Many people in England felt that there were still too many similarities between the Church of England and Rome, and demanded greater reforms. Some even wished to ‘purify’ the Anglican Church of all Catholic rituals. They became known as the Puritans. Others called for a break with the existing church, and became known as the Separatists. However, Henry VIII had decreed that all citizens were required to follow the state religion: the Anglican Church. Those who did not, would face prosecution - talk about denial of human rights. By the time King James I ascended the throne in 1603, the situation had become more tense.

CAUGHT WITH HIS TROUSERS DOWN - The Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor may not remember the 17 year old Virginia Roberts, but unless this photograph is a fake (doubtful - it must have been checked out) he did meet the young lady at some point - even if only posing at a drinks party, and Ghislaine Maxwell was at this meeting. One question we would ask is how do we know the age of the claimant from this picture? She could easily be 18 or older. Or she may have claimed to be over 18, for Ghislaine to have allowed Virginia to have been photographed with the Duke. No doubt, testimony from Ms Maxwell will clear that up. And where and when was the picture taken, and by whom? You can imagine that with US State laws varying, and this picture looking for all the world like London, where the age of consent is 16, the precise details relating to the taking of this picture are extremely important. It might be worth checking passports, etc. Not that we are saying anything did or did not happen between the Prince and Ms Roberts. For the sake of argument, if something did take place (that the Duke cannot recall) and it was in London, then no crime had been committed except under prostitution and trafficking laws - if applicable. It would not be fair to even interview the Prince, until the facts had been established, for fear of the Bill trying to trick him into something he could not possibly remember. We know of a case where penetration had been alleged during a police interview, but the evidence told only of natural marks and a hymen that could not be opened [even] with labial traction. A so-called child specialist gave evidence at trial, that the natural marks could only be explained by penetration. Legal Aid restrictions prevented the defendant in that case from instructing a specialist. Sussex police allowed the jury to hear misleading evidence, and the man was convicted on naturally occurring marks, found in females of all ages. British justice is such that despite other discrepancies being identified during the trial, such as a diary being attributed by the trial judge to the defendant, when it belonged to a psychiatric nurse, an appeal has never made it back to the Courts. And that is because there in no right of appeal in England, one has to seek permission of a single judge, and the Royal Courts of Justice refused to provide vital transcripts needed to be able to mount an appeal. Europe sent back a human rights claim after 4 years, suggesting the wrongly convicted man had a domestic remedy. Sadly, Europe is out of tune with British law. There is no effective remedy in the UK. Article 13 not being included in the HRA 1998. On that basis, good luck to anyone facing trial in the UK's 'kangaroo courts. At least Prince Andrew has unlimited funds for Andrew Brettler's legal team in the USA. In the UK, Legal Aid does not extend to seeking independent medical experts. Funding is barely sufficient to mount any kind of defence in complex cases, such as historic sex allegations, whereas the Crown Prosecution Service has virtually unlimited resources. In addition, Sussex police had raided the appellant's home and stolen privileged Rule 39 files, rendering the process null and void, recently brought to light when in another Sussex case in 2021, the CPS included stolen privileged documents in their case against another SLAPP victim (who was beaten unconscious in a police van), Also by virtue of prior involvement as a R v Sussex Justices 1924, infringement, where the victim had reported crimes to Sussex police, but they had failed to investigate the claims of 11 unrelated petitioners as to planning fraud in Wealden. A matter still outstanding, as there is no statute of limitations on such crimes. If the State refuses an audience under the 1689 Bill of Rights, the only recourse is to the International Criminal Court, in the Hague.

NOW IS THE TIME FOR CHANGE - Under the present system where the Head of State is a royal, and there is no written constitution, politicians like David Cameron and Boris Johnson can lie with impunity - even to Queen Elizabeth - and not face penalties. Police officers can shoot unarmed civilians and not be sent to prison, and planning officers can deceive the Secretaries of State and High Court judges, and not be prosecuted. It is alleged that there is little justice in England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. We aver that such machinations are costing the ordinary taxpayer, Treasury and the Crown (being the state) significant sums of money, while adding to the UK's carbon footprint. Hence, the country is not being run effectively by the at present; defective administration, not to serve its citizens, but to sustain and profit itself from consultancy fees as part time politicians. Unlike the US Constitution of 1791 that exists to serve the people. Under the administration of The Queen, as the Head of State in the at present Constitutional Monarchy, Britain has become known as the drug money laundering capital of the world. In a modern democracy, such criminalities exposes the absurdity of a hereditary system, where those in line to take the reins of the nation, have no administrative or economic qualifications, and have proven time and again that they have appointed the wrong Prime Ministers. To wit, alleged war criminal, Tony Blair, and Boris Johnson - who lied to the Queen. Not to mention the mishandling of Covid, the steep rise in energy prices (energy inflation) and the almost total lack of affordable housing - so perpetuating the renting financial-slave-trade. In addition, the planning system is held to be corrupt to the core, as is the honours system. The icing on the cake is the lack of an effective remedy, befitting the dictatorial likes of Adolf Hitler, in disarming the electorate - based on Henry VIII's statute, making his word law (off with his head 4.5 beheadings a day). It is surely time for a constitutional overhaul - to cut out the cancerous cells - and become an accountable democracy based, not based on award bribery and ranking, but based on ability and competence. In the light of these failings and the lack of suitably experienced royals to continue, especially following the fallout of the ongoing sex scandal. The monarchy may like to consider abdicating their duties and call for a referendum. In 1672, an angry Dutch electorate, killed and ate their ‘Grand Pensionary’ Johan de Witt, in effect, the prime minister of the then failed republic. They wanted strong leadership from the young Prince of Orange: Willem III, later William III of England. Perhaps, now is the time for reversal - a return to a republic based on merit, not political horseshit. We feel sure that Hannibal Lecter, would like to have some old friends for dinner. In the political sense, that is!

LINKS & REFERENCE

https://www.

Please use our A-Z INDEX to navigate this site