GRAHAM WOOD
I believe there exists a growing undercurrent of opinion on this question that needs to be opened up and discussed in the public sphere.
Traditionally a great reserve of approval and respect for the existence of the monarchy in Britain has built up over centuries, and not least due to what was regarded as the late Queen’s total dedication to her duties and her strong personal following. Much of that reservoir of feeling still exists as many see the monarchy as a unique institution which would be hard to replace in favour of a republic. However, the short reign of KCIII has probably initiated a questioning of this once hallowed institution because the present king appears to have radically departed from the established principles that the monarchy must be above party politics, and remain detached from open partisan positions on public issues of the day, let alone those that are regarded as being controversial such as, for example, the existence and growth of Islam in Britain.
A majority of people in the UK see Islam, with much justification as being hostile to our way of life, a direct challenge to all democratic principles that we hold dear, and not least threatening to the vulnerable in our society such as the safety of women and children in our towns and streets from Islamic violence. It is clear from KCIII’s oft repeated and active support for Islam and its institutions and customs that he has enraged and alienated masses of Britons against the monarchy in general, and the stance of the king in particular. So much so that calls for the king to abdicate are growing and being voiced more openly and publicly than for many years.
Should the king heed these sentiments and step down, notwithstanding the constitutional crisis that would certainly result, with the question of the place of the monarchy itself which would come into public prominence once again? I believe the King is morally, legally, and constitutionally obliged to abdicate on several grounds.
Firstly whatever his views on Islam may be as a private person is entirely his own affair, but clearly unacceptable given his position as nominated head of the professing state church – the Church of England. Thus his public support for Islam speaks of hypocrisy on a personal level and entirely incompatible with Britain’s status, even if only nominally, as a historically Christian nation. To step down in recognition of this would be regarded by the British people as honest, logical and would do much to restore some personal respect for him in making a right and necessary choice. However, King Charles’ now regular support for Islam raises more important issues relating to his position within our Constitution in relation to his Coronation Oath. (Incidentally, the same would apply to Prince William who has just affirmed that “Islam is the religion of peace that other faiths must learn from”).
The Coronation Oath of the British monarch is a solemn declaration of office taken during the coronation ceremony and consists of three parts:
To govern in compliance with the laws and customs of the people.
To govern justly, and to uphold the historic Protestant Christian faith and rights of the Church of England. It is unambiguously Christian.
Whereupon the Archbishop presiding asks the king to affirm these fundamentally important principles which are binding upon the king –
‘Will you solemnly promise……? after which the king is required to kiss the Bible and reply: ‘The things which I have here before promised I will perform and keep, so help me God’.
As supreme Governor of the Church of England therefore the monarch’s role has always been more than merely ceremonial, it is a “solemn tether to Britain’s Christian heritage” which is to be legally and constitutionally maintained as sworn publicly before God and the people.
It beggars belief therefore that Charles appears oblivious to the stark contradictions between the Islam which he now openly espouses and the terms of the Oath he had undertaken. They are completely at odds and mutually incompatible, and so on these grounds the King should abdicate to demonstrate that he is not above the law and the Constitution he has sworn to uphold.
One writer points out the much published situation whereby this year Buckingham Palace confirmed that the King would issue no Easter message, a departure from the previous year. While he had offered reflections in 2025, this year’s silence stands in stark contrast to his continuous engagement with other faiths and critics have pointed to Ramadan messages and interfaith initiatives as evidence of a double standard.
What about The “Defender of the Faith” title, granted to Henry VIII and carried forward through centuries? My own answer is that this is a long outdated historic anachronism, in practice meaningless and best consigned to the dustbin of history.
Second. Charles should stand down because his short reign thus far has been marked by an eagerness to align with political causes, namely the Fabian-influenced Labour establishment and its intellectual cousins, together with his lifelong climate activism, warning of “existential threats” and calling for the “radical transformation” of the fossil-fuel economy. This echoes the globalist language of the World Economic Forum of which the King is an active member and frequent spokesman at its meetings in Davos, Switzerland. How is this contentious circle to be squared when that alien organisation is committed to the destruction of the nation state, is prominent in advocating new ideologically Marxist policies, and openly confesses that it has infiltrated national cabinets in order to direct policies?
Is it possible that the King’s stance is not sustained out of principle or personal conviction, but rather by the diktats of this organisation and the political objectives of declared globalist ambitions which he has so foolishly accepted?
Third. It is the King’s clear and public attachment to collective Islam, perceived by the British public to be an evident evil which increasingly will alienate him from them and from his constitutional obligations sworn under oath. As commentator/author Clive Matelas has rightly declared in his small and informative work –‘Enablers of Islam’ – ‘We are living at a time of widespread deceit about Islam. Every pillar of society that we once relied upon to protect us, is failing: the Church, politicians, the police, the judiciary, the armed forces, the charity sector, the human rights organisations, and the international community. All of them have been infiltrated by pro-Islam forces. The evidence is becoming increasingly undeniable. *
That evidence mounts up to the point where our King is himself seemingly delusional as to the nature and political intention of Islam to achieve world dominance. The British public would have been aware of the direction of travel of King Charles through several highly questionable statements he has made in public speeches from time to time – for example one excerpt :
“If there is much misunderstanding in the West about the nature of Islam there is also much ignorance about the debt our own culture and civilisation owe to the Islamic world”.
Similarly, he stated back in 1993 (then as Prince Charles) further distorted views about the nature and influence of Islam:
“Islam is part of our past and present in all fields of human endeavour. It has helped to create modern Europe. It is part of our own inheritance and not a thing apart. Islam can teach us today a way of understanding and living in the world which Christianity itself is the poorer for having lost”
And again, in a recent speech the King attempted to lecture us in his advice “to abandon Western values and Christianity for the wisdom of Islam.”.
Needless to say this ‘wisdom of Islam’ is conspicuous by its absence and is never defined by the King or indeed by leading Islamic scholars today! Where or what is this “wisdom”? How is Christianity “poorer” for failing to understand this wisdom?
It must also be asked: Where is this debt that our own culture and civilisation is supposed to owe to the Islamic world? Surely, the most prominent feature of collective Islam perceived by the British public is that of institutional coercion, intimidation, and violence, via shouts of ‘Jihad’ by mobs on our streets wielding knives, swords, machetes etc whilst our brave boys in blue run for their lives.
Meanwhile, they also see the disgraceful scandal of Christian street preachers, writers and broadcasters either silenced or arrested by a politicised police force as agents of government policy in years of suppression of free speech of genuine by dissidents. By contrast and repeatedly threatening Moslem mobs are often ignored. Moreover, the prospect of an imposed Islamic Sharia law is one of deep disquiet which challenges our traditional rule of Common law.
It is inconceivable that the King will be unaware of the weekly fatal stabbings taking place against his subjects on British streets, many of which are accompanied by the now familiar cry – ‘Allahau Akbar. So we are entitled as a matter of some urgency to ask how much longer will these acts of violence continue whilst the King pays tribute to the Islamic ideology that drives them?
The British public therefore may be forgiven for asking how is the Islam which their king promotes in their interest at all? How is this medieval killer cult allowed to prosper and grow through official Establishment support to the extent that the very existence of our nation’s long and honoured Christian beliefs and traditions are in peril?
By sharp contrast our long and rich Christian heritage is praised by a superb article here on FSB by Jessica Carlile – ‘Easter Sunday – the day that created Western civilisation‘. On the resurrection of Christ she writes:
‘The effect of this single truth upon Western civilisation is impossible to overstate. The resurrection of Jesus Christ did not merely touch individual souls; it completely remade the moral and intellectual landscape of Europe and, by extension, the nations that sprang from it.
Before the Gospel arrived on these islands, pagan Britain lived under a heavy shadow of fatalism. Life was short, brutish, and locked in endless cycles – ruled by the turning wheel of fortune and the caprice of indifferent gods. Christianity introduced a linear view of history with divine purpose: creation, fall, redemption through the cross, and final restoration at the return of the risen Lord. Easter Sunday stands at the centre of that story as the decisive victory that broke the power of death and opened the future to hope.’
The contrast could not be more stark and vivid, and the clear implication to be drawn is that our King is deeply deceived as to the nature of Islam and unnecessarily dividing the nation. He is set on a course that can only result in what many see as inevitable severe civil disorder in days to come if pursued further.
The King should do the right and honourable thing and abdicate before such a possibility is allowed to occur, and Britain can then begin the recovery of our national Christian heritage without the distraction of militant Islam.
Graham Wood
*Enablers of Islam Paperback: ENABLERS OF ISLAM: THE CHURCH
ENABLERS OF ISLAM: THE CHURCH
ENABLERS OF ISLAM: THE CHURCH Why does the Church promote evil? Islam is evil, the Church promotes Islam, thus t…
This article (SHOULD KING CHARLES ABDICATE?) was created and published by Free Speech Backlash and is republished here under “Fair Use” with attribution to the author Graham Wood
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of The Liberty Beacon Project.
Leave a Reply