Blogger’s Note: England’s absolute monarchy ended in 1648 – when the axe fell on the neck of Charles I (this is the date on his coffin plaque – after the 1751 calendar change in the UK – this became 1649 in the history books – as New Year’s Day switched from March 25th to January 1st). Following the betrayal of the Republic – a “Constitutional Monarchy was enacted by the English Parliament. This was to give the false impression that an absolute monarch was back in power and that he would punish the peasants for rising-up and supporting Parliament (proof of this supposed power was evident in the hunting down and murdering of nearly all of Cromwell’s Parliamentary supporters by the UK government). This was all smoke and mirrors as the new king possessed no real power (or at least far less power than his father). The bourgeoisie were not prepaired to relinquish their control of the means of production they had seized with the execution of King Charles I (between 1660-1721 and the introduction of a “Prime Minister” there was a type of “limited” power-sharing between Parliament and the monarch – but this did work out and was slowly reduced and withdrawn over the years). This is where things stand today. The British royal family has changed in ethnicity a few times since then – including Dutch and German – as their origin does not matter as they have no power. In reality, the British discovered Australia around 1770 – long after the English Civil War(s) and even after the 1688 overthrow of James II and his replacement with Dutch aristocracy. Indeed, in was the first Dutch King – William of Orange – who was on the English throne at the time Captain Cook found Australia. Captain Cook was following the orders of the English Parliament (not the monarchy) to explore and settle the world. The confusion probably arises from the fact that the English Parliament uses the non de plume “British Crown” to refer to itself – and uses a “crown” symbol to represent its power (believe it or not – the crown changes design – depending upon whether there is a king or queen on the thrown). In our election system, capitalism and liberal democracy (both invented by the bourgeoisie) cannot be voted out of office. Only the political parties “representing” and “managing” this bourgeois system can be “changed” by voting every four or five-years. Even if King Charles III was prosecuted – he is of German origin and his family was not on the throne when Australia was discovered. It is the permanent bourgeois institutions that are supported by the English Parliament – the Executive (which enforces laws), the Legislature (which makes laws), and the judiciary (which interprets laws) – and the English Parliament itself, that would probably need to be prosecuted. In other words, the national government of the UK administered from Westminster. In this regard, the responsible Prime Minister (which would be Frederick North – Lord North) would probably be the target of such a prosecution. As he has not been alive for hundreds of years – there may be a legal hurdle here that cannot be overcome. ACW (30.9.2026)
Reporter – Edward Burnett – 29th September – King Charles III Celebrities Court
A bid to prosecute King Charles III reached an international court before being thrown out, according to reports by ABC News and the Associated Press.
The decision was handed down by three judges in Victoria’s Court of Appeal in Australia, who dismissed an attempt by Indigenous activist and elder Robbie Thorpe to bring a private prosecution against the monarch.
King Charles, who has a house locally in the Cotswolds, is Australia’s head of state as well as the King of the United Kingdom.
The ruling leaves Mr Thorpe with one remaining domestic avenue, seeking permission to appeal to Australia’s High Court.
ABC News reported that the High Court accepts only a small proportion of applications for leave to appeal.
Mr Thorpe, a 68-year-old elder of the Krautatungalung people, has been attempting since 2023 to launch legal proceedings against the King in Melbourne.
His case alleged that the monarch, together with Australian government institutions, was perpetrating genocide through systems that disadvantage Indigenous Australians.
Following the latest ruling, Mr Thorpe indicated he intended to pursue the matter internationally.
He said: “The International Criminal Court will expose Australia for what it really is — a lying, racist, illegal occupation committing genocide.”
Monday’s decision marked Mr Thorpe’s third legal defeat since beginning his campaign to bring the case before the courts.
According to ABC News and AP, Indigenous Australians make up around four per cent of the country’s population and experience poorer health outcomes, lower life expectancy and higher rates of unemployment and imprisonment than other Australians, according to official statistics.
Legal experts quoted by the news organisations said the British monarch enjoys extensive immunity from criminal and civil liability in the United Kingdom.
Constitutional lawyer Anne Twomey, of Sydney University, said this protection is likely to have been inherited by Australia, although she noted she was unaware of the issue having previously been tested in an Australian court.
The reports also noted that while the International Criminal Court does not recognise immunity for heads of state, individuals cannot themselves initiate prosecutions before the court.
International law expert Don Rothwell of the Australian National University said individuals can instead submit evidence to prosecutors for consideration.
He said: “An individual cannot commence a prosecution. If they’ve exhausted all of their options under Australian law, the best that they can do is seek to provide evidence that they believe constitutes the crime of genocide.
“It’s then up to the International Criminal Court to determine whether they would seek to prosecute.”
King Charles regularly carries out engagements across the UK and has longstanding links to the wider Thames Valley region through royal visits and events attended during his time as Prince of Wales.
