According to the legitimate British (Brythonic) laws, the British monarch must come from a direct male British (Welsh) line. In the history of England & Scotland, there has NEVER been a legitimate British monarch, according to the dynastic laws (Cyfraith Hywel) which governs the sovereign title of Britain (King of Britannia/Rex Britannorum/Brenin y Brythoniaid/Pendraig/Pendragon).
England & Scotland have long relied on their King’s distant relationships with the real British (Welsh) Kings, as the basis of their alleged legitimacy; but these distant relationships do not satisfy the legal requirements, and thus are void. Just as all of their claims to British royal and noble titles are void, for want of a proper fount of honour. Essentially, England & Scotland’s claim to be British, or to be the legitimate British government is based in a long-running fraud. Fraud and unjust acts never create a basis for equity or enforcement in law, as they never become lawful or become part of the international law.
The English have attempted to annex the territory of the Britons several times. The most famous being the false “Anglo-Saxon Conquest’, the ‘Statue of Rhuddlan’, and the ‘Laws in Wales Act’, either by acts of English legislation, rather than a valid international treaty, such as Magna Carta. However, the recent revaluations which disproved the “Anglo-Saxon Conquest” of Britain and forced academics to capitulate on their positions regarding British history and to rename the event the “Anglo-Saxon Settlement” have proven that all the invaders of Britain did not have the competent legal authority to perform such acts.
In the “Laws and Wales Act” preamble, an English parliament, with no British (Welsh) representatives stated that:
1) Henry VIII was the “King” of Wales
2) Wales was, and had always been part of England prior, to the Laws in Wales Act (based on the 1284 Statue of Rhuddlan)
Laws in Wales Act. Preamble
“Albeit the Domynyon Principalitie and Countrey of Wales justly and rightuouslye is and ever hath ben incorporated annexed united and subjecte to & under the Imperiall Crowne of this Realme, as a verrye membre and joynte of the same, Wherfore the Kinges moost Roiall Magestie of mere droite and verye right is verie hedde King Lorde and Ruler, yet notwithstanding by cause that in the same Countrey Principalitie and Dominion dyvers rightes usagis lawes and customes be farre discrepant frome the Lawes and Customes of this Realme”
Yet we now know this information to be false. Wales and England had not been “justly” united; and neither Henry VII or Henry VIII ever put forward a claim to be the King of Wales (Rex Britannorum), or to any of the Welsh native titles.
We now know the Tudors masculine ancestry was fraudulently forged to strengthen their claim to the English crown. In “Tracing Your Aristocrat Ancestors” written in 2013, Anthony Adolph writes, “..the first Tudor King, Henry VII (d. 1509) had forced Welsh genealogist to forge him a pedigree connecting his male-line back to Rhodri Mawr” (Adolph, 2013). “Tracing Your Aristocrat Ancestors” received praise internationally, and the endorsement of the Journal of the Society of Genealogists.
It now appears to academics that Owen Tudor was not the patron of the Tudor dynasty, but rather Edmund Beaufort was the true Father of Edmund & Jasper Tudor. Academics such as Gerald Leslie Harriss, an English historian and Colin Richmond have stated,
“By its very nature the evidence for Edmund Tudor’s parentage is less than conclusive, but such facts, as can be assembled, permit an agreeable possibility that Edmund ‘Tudor’ and Margaret Beaufort were first cousins and that the royal house of ‘Tudor’ sprang in fact from Beauforts on both sides.“
We can tell from the coats of arms registered for Edmund and Jasper Tudor that they both were using the English arms of Edmund Beaufort, rather than the Welsh arms of Owen Tudor.
In fact, there exists no proper record of marriage between Owen Tudor and Catherine of Valois, which is highly unusual. Catherine was a dowager Queen of England, not just some minor royal. Her wedding to anyone, would have been major news in England at the time. However, this has not been enough to sway pseudo-academics on Wikipedia from supporting the Tudor faux ancestry.
Elizabeth Archibald a Professor of English Studies at Durham University, and Principal of St Cuthbert’s Society, and David F. Johnson a Professor of English at Florida State University both also concur with Philip Schwyzer that the Tudors had invented their Welsh ancestry. In the text, “Arthurian Literature” it is written;
“Philip Schwyzer has recently argued that the early Tudor kings played up their British (i.e. Welsh) roots for political advantage, noting how Henry Tudor marketed himself as the mab darogan, or son of prophecy, on his march through Wales from Milford Haven to the Battle of Bosworth. In his History of the Kings of Britain, written in Latin in the early twelfth century, Geoffrey of Monmouth tells of how Cadwalladr, the last king of Britons, was forbidden by an angel to return to Britain from Rome. ‘for that God had willed the Britons should no longer reign in Britain before that time should come whereof Merlin had prophesied unto Arthur’. The angel asked the Britons patiently submit to Saxon rule, but prophesied their future deliverance by the mab darogan, a military leader who would free the Britons from their Saxon yoke, and who in the Welsh bardic tradition was identified as a direct descendant of Cadwalladr. It was no accident then, that Henry Tudor commissioned a genealogy which traced his family tree through Cadwalladr to the ‘ancient kings of Britain and the Prince of Wales’, nor was it coincidence that at Bosworth, and again at his coronation as St. Paul’s, Henry Tudor bore on his coat of arms the red dragon which the prophet Merlin (according to Geoffrey of Monmouth) identified with the Britons, and which in the History fights and eventually defeats the white dragon of the Saxon invaders. Henry Tudor was very much aware of the role of the mab darogan in Welsh political prophecy, and in his presentation as king he shrewdly exploited its symbolism” (Elizabeth Archibald (Editor), 2015)
Modern scholars and expert genealogist are now telling us that the Tudor genealogy was invented by Henry VII. The reason for the invention of this genealogy was to gain Welsh support in Henry Tudor’s (VII) claim to the throne of England. You must keep in mind at the time Henry Tudor was working towards the throne of England whilst trying to use his claim which was on a female line, that had already been barred from the succession previously.
What we know from the texts at the time is that Richard III had called Henry Tudors right to claim the title King of England into question when he stated;
“Henry Tudor was an upstart with no manner of right, interest, title, or colour in the throne of England”. According to the text, “Culture and the King”, “Henry did not hesitate to send a commission into Wales to produce a genealogy tracing his ancestry through Owain Glyndŵr to King Arthur and finally back to Brutus, the Trojan hero who was the eponymous founder of Britain”. (Lagorio, 1994)
Being that the Tudors and the Kingdom of England committed fraud and misled the Welsh people, the Laws in Wales Act is void. The Tudors may have been Kings of England, but they were never Kings of the Britons. An English parliament could not vote to annex a nation outside of its jurisdiction without first having the consent of that nation, or having first securing debellatio to enforce a conquest.
The Laws in Wales Act completely ignores the sovereignty of the Britons reinstated by Owain Glyndŵr, Tywysog Cymru. Under Glyndŵr the Britons regained external recognition of sovereignty by the Kingdoms of Scotland, Castile, France.
How could the English parliament claim in 1535 to have a long, unbroken, and undisputed possession of Wales going back to 1284; when we know that Cymru (Britain/Wales) was seen as a sovereign nation in 1404? Clearly this is fraud. Owain Glyndŵr never surrendered in order to preserve the sovereignty of the state.
In Percy Enderbie’s 1661 “Cambria Triumphans”, Enderbie a self-proclaimed Welshman and English propaganda writer, presents a “Genealogy of Charles the 2nd, Monarch of Great Brittain, from the Welsh Blood,” which traces the Scottish king’s ancestry from Cadeth “King of South-wales” through several kings and princes of Wales to the marriage between Nest, “daughter of the Welsh King Griffith ap Lhewelyn, and Fleance, Son of Banquo”; the issue of this royal pair was Walter Stuart, first in the Stuart line.”
“Belligerent occupation does not affect the sovereignty of the occupied state. The occupying power is not successor to the lawful sovereign in the occupied territory, but is a government based on force exercised as a war measure.” (Oppenheim, “Governments and Authorities in Exile, “The American Journal of International Law”, Vol. 36, No. 4 (Oct, 1942), P. 571
The Laws in Wales Act was based on fraud; and so it is unlawful and void, as freedom from fraud is a natural right. Being that Wales was defrauded by the Kingdom of England she is entitled to full reparations, again citing Grotius:
“Contracts, or promises obtained by fraud, violence or undue fear entitle the injured party to full restitution. For perfect freedom from fraud or compulsion, in all our dealings, is a right which we derive from natural law and liberty”
Hugo Grotius, The Rights of War and Peace, including the Law of Nature and of Nations“When the evil is done, the same right to security authorises the offended party to endeavour to obtain a complete reparation” Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Or, Principles of the Law of Nature, Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns, § 51. and that of obtaining reparation
If we now know the Laws and Wales Act is null and void, then the native British (Welsh) law is still the sovereign law of the land; as there may be only one sovereign.
Protests answer this purpose. With sovereigns it is usual to retain the title and arms of a sovereignty or a province, as an evidence that they do not relinquish their claims to it. (Emerich de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Book 2, chapter 11, no. 145)
The [actual] form of the objection [or protest] is irrelevant, so long as the dispossessed state [or exiled royal house] make clear its opposition to the acquisition of title by someone else. (Martin Dixon, Textbook on International Law, 6th ed., 2007, p. 159)
If anyone sufficiently declares by any sign that he does not wish to give up his right, even if he does not pursue it, prescription does not prevail against him. . . . If any sufficiently declares by any sign [for example, use of royal titles and symbols of sovereignty] that he does not want to give up his right, even if he does not pursue it [does not go to war over it], prescription [or loss] does not avail against him. (Christian Wolff, Jus Gentium Methodo, Scientifica Pertractatum, vol. 2, John H. Drake, trans., chapter 3, no. 361, 1934, p. 364)
By its reclamations [assertions of their claim], the State or people [a royal house illegally] deprived of its territory proves that it does not intend to abandon it to the Government which took it. The means of interrupting prescription are of diverse character . . . but if it be weak [like a dispossessed royal house], it can restrict itself to formulating a protest. (Paul Fauchille and Henry Bonfils, Traité de Droit International Public, 2013, p. 760)
Where the possession of the territory is accompanied by emphatic protests on the part of the former sovereign, no title by prescription can arise for such title is founded upon the acquiescence of the dispossessed state [or monarchy], and is such circumstances, consent of third states is of little consequence. (Seokwoo Lee, “Continuing Relevance of Traditional Modes of Territorial Acquisition in International Law and a Modest Proposal,” Connecticut Journal of International Law, Fall 2000, p. 8 and Charles G. Fenwick, International Law, 4th ed., 1965, p. 351)
“. . . Prescription requires . . . the absence of protest on the part of the former possessor [or his legitimate successors].” (Sharon Korman, The Right of Conquest: The Acquisition of Territory by Force in International Law and Practice, 2003, p. 27) Otherwise, it does not work and the dispossessed royal house continues to hold the highest secular right on earth in relationship to its former lands as long as it continues to uphold its rights by the consistent public use of the sovereign title and national arms of that land.
The usurpers of Britain are well aware they cannot produce a valid, true, and sovereign title to Britain (Prydain). If you email their alleged Cabinet Office and ask them if they can produce a valid sovereign title to Great Britain, or who Llywelyn Rex Britannorum is, you will likely not receive a reply or your questions and comments will just be noted. This is because Llywelyn is the only person in the world capable of producing a valid and sovereign title to Kingship in Britain, according to the dynastic laws which governs the titles.
Sources:
Davies, R. R. (1987). Conquest, Coexistence, and Change: Wales 1063-1415. Oxford University Press; First Edition edition.
“Owen Tudor: Founding Father of the Tudor Dynasty” by Terry Breverton
Grotius, H. (1625). The Law of War and Peace
Vattel, E. d. (1758). The Law of Nations. Switzerland
Brown, P. M. (1941). Sovereignty in Exile. The American Journal of International Law, pp. 666-668.