Author Topic: A Confession and another important thing regarding England and Ireland.  (Read 14563 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Jacob Harrison

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1571
  • Gender: Male
  • The person who discovered England's true monarch
When did they specifically say that was a mortal sin, when did they remove it. Citation needed!

Well rape has always been considered a mortal sin. While it is still Catholic doctrine that rape is a mortal sin, they no longer teach it to their clergy.

Offline Tolpuddle Martyr

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 3716
  • Have you got thumbs? SHOW ME YOUR FUCKING THUMBS!
When did they specifically say that was a mortal sin, when did they remove it. Citation needed!

Well rape has always been considered a mortal sin. While it is still Catholic doctrine that rape is a mortal sin, they no longer teach it to their clergy.
They don't teach their own doctrine to their clergy? Oh go play with your magic fetishes.

And your denim one while you're at it, while dreaming about your cuz!

Offline dpareja

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 5680
1. Being a "tribe" does not make a group primitive, or the reverse. The Aztecs, Incas, etc., had "Empires"--were they primitive? The conquistadors certainly thought so. For that matter, the Iroquois Confederacy partially inspired the US Constitution, but they've also been called primitive.

2. One, bats are not birds, two, the Bible proves itself wrong by being logically inconsistent.

3. "Creator" was, as has been repeatedly pointed out, a reference to a deistic notion (and even then was a mangling of Jefferson's original), and even so does not necessarily refer to a monotheistic creator. The religious views of the people are not relevant in this matter.

4. The New Testament says you can sin however the fuck much you want and get into Heaven as long as you kiss the invisible Jigglypuff-in-space's ass. See Matthew 5, particularly verse 19.

5. Why do you Christians need to use the government to force everyone else to act as your religion commands?



6a. Which I already pointed out is a massively flawed process.

6b. ONLY IF THE PEOPLE VOTE ON IT. This is why Spain is legitimately a monarchy, as is Norway, as is Australia, as is Belgium, along with a number of other nations; however note that these countries are parliamentary constitutional monarchies, with the monarch acting as the head of state while the actual executive power is exercised by those with the democratic legitimacy to do so.

6c. See 6a.

6d. And who the fuck is the Church accountable to? The Church was just as bad then as they are now; perhaps in different ways, but they were absolutely fucking corrupt (fucking in both the literal and figurative senses). Again, nobody has ever produced a proof of God's existence (and those claiming it have the burden of proof), and any god that has been posited by humanity has been disproven.

6e. That's hardly a guarantee, especially if the monarch has acted in a way to endear the military to himself and make it clear that loyalty will be richly rewarded in the event of rebellion. As for "legitimate Democracy", the UK is a legitimate democracy (indeed no system of government that is not democratic can be legitimate, as they lack the vital popular mandate), you're just pissy about how it got there.
Quote from: Jordan Duram
It doesn't concern you, Sister, that kind of absolutist view of the universe? Right and wrong determined solely by a single all-knowing, all powerful being whose judgment cannot be questioned and in whose name the most horrendous acts can be sanctioned without appeal?

Quote from: Supreme Court of Canada
Being required by someone else’s religious beliefs to behave contrary to one’s sexual identity is degrading and disrespectful.

Art Vandelay

  • Guest
I wonder, are planning to find the rightful ruler of every single former noble title in Britain, down to the last barony, like you are for the kingdom? It's all well and good to find the rightful King of England, but what about the rightful Duke of Kent, or Earl of Suffolk, for example? After all, a king is far from the sole rightful owner of the land within a kingdom. Outside of his demesne, its his vassals, both direct and indirect, that are the rightful owners of the land (and each duchy and earldom with its own independent succession laws, just to make it even more fun), and those claims are every bit as important as the king's. If you want to restore feudalism to England with the descendants of the old nobility in power, there's a lot more to consider than just the king himself.

Well most of the barrons are the rightful rulers of their lands by inheritance and are part of the current House of Lords.
"Most" barons, and nary a mention of the earls, dukes, marquises and other landed nobility (not to mention, the clergy), huh? In other words, just ignore everything below the king and hope it works out. Doesn't exactly inspire confidence, I have to say. If you want people to get on board with your plan, you really ought to do things properly. After all, if you clearly don't give a shit, why should anyone else?
I couldn't help but notice you've yet to address this. What, you only care about one title out of hundreds? You expect fellow feudal restorationists to fight for a mere shadow of the former Kingdom of England? A thin veneer of restored nobility that neglects the rightful owners of the lands outside of the king's demesne?

You make me want to wretch.

Offline Jacob Harrison

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1571
  • Gender: Male
  • The person who discovered England's true monarch
I wonder, are planning to find the rightful ruler of every single former noble title in Britain, down to the last barony, like you are for the kingdom? It's all well and good to find the rightful King of England, but what about the rightful Duke of Kent, or Earl of Suffolk, for example? After all, a king is far from the sole rightful owner of the land within a kingdom. Outside of his demesne, its his vassals, both direct and indirect, that are the rightful owners of the land (and each duchy and earldom with its own independent succession laws, just to make it even more fun), and those claims are every bit as important as the king's. If you want to restore feudalism to England with the descendants of the old nobility in power, there's a lot more to consider than just the king himself.

Well most of the barrons are the rightful rulers of their lands by inheritance and are part of the current House of Lords.
"Most" barons, and nary a mention of the earls, dukes, marquises and other landed nobility (not to mention, the clergy), huh? In other words, just ignore everything below the king and hope it works out. Doesn't exactly inspire confidence, I have to say. If you want people to get on board with your plan, you really ought to do things properly. After all, if you clearly don't give a shit, why should anyone else?
I couldn't help but notice you've yet to address this. What, you only care about one title out of hundreds? You expect fellow feudal restorationists to fight for a mere shadow of the former Kingdom of England? A thin veneer of restored nobility that neglects the rightful owners of the lands outside of the king's demesne?

You make me want to wretch.

In England there will be an investigation into it and all rightful heirs to noble titles will be restored to their positions.

Offline Askold

  • Definitely not hiding a dark secret.
  • Global Moderator
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 8358
  • Gender: Male
I can't help but notice that all of these plans seem to hinge on convincing others to put in power rulers who either are in it purely for money (and were in fact chosen in that position only because they want to get rich by becoming the new queen of a nation) or haven't actually been part of your conspiracy and will be surprised by being placed in power and most resist your stupid plan.
No matter what happens, no matter what my last words may end up being, I want everyone to claim that they were:
"If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine."
Aww, you guys rock. :)  I feel the love... and the pitchforks and torches.  Tingly!

Offline Jacob Harrison

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1571
  • Gender: Male
  • The person who discovered England's true monarch
1. Being a "tribe" does not make a group primitive, or the reverse. The Aztecs, Incas, etc., had "Empires"--were they primitive? The conquistadors certainly thought so. For that matter, the Iroquois Confederacy partially inspired the US Constitution, but they've also been called primitive.

2. One, bats are not birds, two, the Bible proves itself wrong by being logically inconsistent.

3. "Creator" was, as has been repeatedly pointed out, a reference to a deistic notion (and even then was a mangling of Jefferson's original), and even so does not necessarily refer to a monotheistic creator. The religious views of the people are not relevant in this matter.

4. The New Testament says you can sin however the fuck much you want and get into Heaven as long as you kiss the invisible Jigglypuff-in-space's ass. See Matthew 5, particularly verse 19.

5. Why do you Christians need to use the government to force everyone else to act as your religion commands?



6a. Which I already pointed out is a massively flawed process.

6b. ONLY IF THE PEOPLE VOTE ON IT. This is why Spain is legitimately a monarchy, as is Norway, as is Australia, as is Belgium, along with a number of other nations; however note that these countries are parliamentary constitutional monarchies, with the monarch acting as the head of state while the actual executive power is exercised by those with the democratic legitimacy to do so.

6c. See 6a.

6d. And who the fuck is the Church accountable to? The Church was just as bad then as they are now; perhaps in different ways, but they were absolutely fucking corrupt (fucking in both the literal and figurative senses). Again, nobody has ever produced a proof of God's existence (and those claiming it have the burden of proof), and any god that has been posited by humanity has been disproven.

6e. That's hardly a guarantee, especially if the monarch has acted in a way to endear the military to himself and make it clear that loyalty will be richly rewarded in the event of rebellion. As for "legitimate Democracy", the UK is a legitimate democracy (indeed no system of government that is not democratic can be legitimate, as they lack the vital popular mandate), you're just pissy about how it got there.

1. True being a tribe itself does not make one primitive, however being a tribe without there being a unified nation is primitive.

2. In the language of the time, bats were considered birds. And any contradictions in the Bible can be explained by the fact that the human writers of the Bible made mistakes. That does not change the fact that it was inspired by God.

3. The majority of the colonists were Christians, not deists, and many of the founding fathers such as George Washington were Christian, so why would they have the Declaration of Independence based on deism which was a minority belief in Colonies that were majority Christian? That does not make sense.

4. You forgot to include verse 20.

“19He therefore that shall break one of these least commandments, and shall so teach men, shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven. But he that shall do and teach, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

20For I tell you, that unless your justice abound more than that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.”

That shows that those who are called least in the kingdom of Heaven are not in heaven when they are called that.

5. Us Christians don’t use the government to force people to act as Christianity commands, we use the government to promote Christianity in a traditionally Christian nation to preserve our traditional cultural heritage which Christianity is a part of. Atheists should not interfere with traditional culture, and why should they care if Christianity is promoted by the government?

6b-That was not part of England’s original constitution

6d-The Church is also held accountable to God because other clergy can condemn corrupt clergy, and if they are higher up, punish clergy who behave badly. Reforms have been made in the past when there was corruption in the Church such as the Council of Trent. There needs to be major reforms made to stop the horrible pedophilia scandal, such as more action being taken to defrock pedophile priests and those in the clergy that cover for them.

6e-Well there will be some form of Magna Carta constitution that will prevent the monarch from acting arbitrarily. The power of the monarch will be absolute but not arbitrary.

And exactly, I am angry at the illegitimate illegal way that England became a democracy because it was not done by the legitimate monarchs.

Offline Tolpuddle Martyr

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 3716
  • Have you got thumbs? SHOW ME YOUR FUCKING THUMBS!
1. True being a tribe itself does not make one primitive, however being a tribe without there being a unified nation is primitive.

Actually there are several definitions of the word "primitive" not just your made up one. The etymology of the word comes from the old French primitif, from Latin prīmitīvus (“first or earliest of its kind”) Considering that your entire worldview revolves around giving political power to original ruling houses of Europe it is innately primitive.

2. In the language of the time, bats were considered birds. And any contradictions in the Bible can be explained by the fact that the human writers of the Bible made mistakes. That does not change the fact that it was inspired by God.

Even a primitive culture like the ones who penned the bible had eyes, snouts are not beaks but, hey, thank you for confirming that the Bible is unreliable tosh whose conclusions can be safely ditched.

3. The majority of the colonists were Christians, not deists, and many of the founding fathers such as George Washington were Christian, so why would they have the Declaration of Independence based on deism which was a minority belief in Colonies that were majority Christian? That does not make sense.

The matter at hand is not their religion but what they wrote, what you think they were thinking is irrelevant.

4. You forgot to include verse 20.

“19He therefore that shall break one of these least commandments, and shall so teach men, shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven. But he that shall do and teach, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

20For I tell you, that unless your justice abound more than that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.”

That shows that those who are called least in the kingdom of Heaven are not in heaven when they are called that.

Nope, according to you it shows something penned by mere humans who didn't have a clue what they were talking about.

5. Us Christians don’t use the government to force people to act as Christianity commands, we use the government to promote Christianity in a traditionally Christian nation to preserve our traditional cultural heritage which Christianity is a part of. Atheists should not interfere with traditional culture, and why should they care if Christianity is promoted by the government?

Because your mob has a history of burning competitors alive?

6b-That was not part of England’s original constitution
What original constitution? England doesn't have one, to this day.

6d-The Church is also held accountable to God because other clergy can condemn corrupt clergy, and if they are higher up, punish clergy who behave badly. Reforms have been made in the past when there was corruption in the Church such as the Council of Trent. There needs to be major reforms made to stop the horrible pedophilia scandal, such as more action being taken to defrock pedophile priests and those in the clergy that cover for them.

So reforms you don't like (Vatican 2.0) are bad but reforms you do like are good, heads I win, tails you lose kind of deal. And accountable to an imaginary being explains everything you need to know about the misdeeds of the Catholic Church.

6e-Well there will be some form of Magna Carta constitution that will prevent the monarch from acting arbitrarily. The power of the monarch will be absolute but not arbitrary.

And exactly, I am angry at the illegitimate illegal way that England became a democracy because it was not done by the legitimate monarchs.
The Magna Carta is not a constitution, it's one of many charters in English law. It says right on the tin. That's what "Carta" is!

And the will of the people will always be more legitimate than some toff wanker who's got what he has because he had a rich daddy!

Besides which, hey Seppo, what the fuck is an AMERICAN doing telling the BRITISH how they should run their own electoral affairs? You aren't from there Yankee Doodle, stop trying to do to the British what Reagan did to Chile!

Art Vandelay

  • Guest
In England there will be an investigation into it and all rightful heirs to noble titles will be restored to their positions.
Investigation by whom, and when? Surely, you're not expecting to only bother with the king, then kick back and relax while someone else does the rest of the work, right?

Honestly, if you want me and I would image most others to even consider taking you seriously, the king is only the beginning. You need to find out who is the rightful lord of what land (according to the specific succession laws of that title), who is the rightful liege of what lord and, arguably most importantly, what exactly are each vassal's obligations and duties to his or her liege. Not just taxes and troop levies, but also things like war duties (such as commanding troops, what supplies, if any, he or she is obligated to provide to the army, in the event that it enters his or her holdings, administering the realm while the king is out on campaign, etc), maintaining highways and/or canals, whether or not a lesser noble is allowed to go to war independent of the king, be it against a fellow English lord or a foreign realm, as well as penalties for failing to meet their obligations. There's a lot more to building a feudal kingdom than merely finding out who should be king and calling it a day. That's only the very beginning of what you must do. For someone who so desperately wants England to return to feudalism for some reason, it's quite frankly a little disappointing that I have to point this out in the first place. You don't seem to realise just what it is you're arguing for, and again, that doesn't exactly inspire confidence.

Offline Jacob Harrison

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1571
  • Gender: Male
  • The person who discovered England's true monarch
1. True being a tribe itself does not make one primitive, however being a tribe without there being a unified nation is primitive.

Actually there are several definitions of the word "primitive" not just your made up one. The etymology of the word comes from the old French primitif, from Latin prīmitīvus (“first or earliest of its kind”) Considering that your entire worldview revolves around giving political power to original ruling houses of Europe it is innately primitive.

2. In the language of the time, bats were considered birds. And any contradictions in the Bible can be explained by the fact that the human writers of the Bible made mistakes. That does not change the fact that it was inspired by God.

Even a primitive culture like the ones who penned the bible had eyes, snouts are not beaks but, hey, thank you for confirming that the Bible is unreliable tosh whose conclusions can be safely ditched.

3. The majority of the colonists were Christians, not deists, and many of the founding fathers such as George Washington were Christian, so why would they have the Declaration of Independence based on deism which was a minority belief in Colonies that were majority Christian? That does not make sense.

The matter at hand is not their religion but what they wrote, what you think they were thinking is irrelevant.

4. You forgot to include verse 20.

“19He therefore that shall break one of these least commandments, and shall so teach men, shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven. But he that shall do and teach, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

20For I tell you, that unless your justice abound more than that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.”

That shows that those who are called least in the kingdom of Heaven are not in heaven when they are called that.

Nope, according to you it shows something penned by mere humans who didn't have a clue what they were talking about.

5. Us Christians don’t use the government to force people to act as Christianity commands, we use the government to promote Christianity in a traditionally Christian nation to preserve our traditional cultural heritage which Christianity is a part of. Atheists should not interfere with traditional culture, and why should they care if Christianity is promoted by the government?

Because your mob has a history of burning competitors alive?

6b-That was not part of England’s original constitution
What original constitution? England doesn't have one, to this day.

6d-The Church is also held accountable to God because other clergy can condemn corrupt clergy, and if they are higher up, punish clergy who behave badly. Reforms have been made in the past when there was corruption in the Church such as the Council of Trent. There needs to be major reforms made to stop the horrible pedophilia scandal, such as more action being taken to defrock pedophile priests and those in the clergy that cover for them.

So reforms you don't like (Vatican 2.0) are bad but reforms you do like are good, heads I win, tails you lose kind of deal. And accountable to an imaginary being explains everything you need to know about the misdeeds of the Catholic Church.

6e-Well there will be some form of Magna Carta constitution that will prevent the monarch from acting arbitrarily. The power of the monarch will be absolute but not arbitrary.

And exactly, I am angry at the illegitimate illegal way that England became a democracy because it was not done by the legitimate monarchs.
The Magna Carta is not a constitution, it's one of many charters in English law. It says right on the tin. That's what "Carta" is!

And the will of the people will always be more legitimate than some toff wanker who's got what he has because he had a rich daddy!

Besides which, hey Seppo, what the fuck is an AMERICAN doing telling the BRITISH how they should run their own electoral affairs? You aren't from there Yankee Doodle, stop trying to do to the British what Reagan did to Chile!

1. Ok, I guess another word I could use is less civilized.

2. As I said, while it proves that the writers of the bible made mistakes, it does not change the fact that the bible is the inspired word of God.


3. But I proved that the wrote it referring to the Christian God


4. Because the other reforms did not change the Church's sacred traditions, Vatican 2 did.


5. What I mean by Constitution is legal system in how the government is run. The will of the people is only more legitimate, if the government is a legitimate democracy such as the United States.


The reason why I want the true legitimate monarchs restored to the throne of England, is because I am an Anglo American, and America and England share common heritage.   

Offline Jacob Harrison

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1571
  • Gender: Male
  • The person who discovered England's true monarch
In England there will be an investigation into it and all rightful heirs to noble titles will be restored to their positions.
Investigation by whom, and when? Surely, you're not expecting to only bother with the king, then kick back and relax while someone else does the rest of the work, right?

Honestly, if you want me and I would image most others to even consider taking you seriously, the king is only the beginning. You need to find out who is the rightful lord of what land (according to the specific succession laws of that title), who is the rightful liege of what lord and, arguably most importantly, what exactly are each vassal's obligations and duties to his or her liege. Not just taxes and troop levies, but also things like war duties (such as commanding troops, what supplies, if any, he or she is obligated to provide to the army, in the event that it enters his or her holdings, administering the realm while the king is out on campaign, etc), maintaining highways and/or canals, whether or not a lesser noble is allowed to go to war independent of the king, be it against a fellow English lord or a foreign realm, as well as penalties for failing to meet their obligations. There's a lot more to building a feudal kingdom than merely finding out who should be king and calling it a day. That's only the very beginning of what you must do. For someone who so desperately wants England to return to feudalism for some reason, it's quite frankly a little disappointing that I have to point this out in the first place. You don't seem to realise just what it is you're arguing for, and again, that doesn't exactly inspire confidence.

The English courts will investigate.

Art Vandelay

  • Guest
In England there will be an investigation into it and all rightful heirs to noble titles will be restored to their positions.
Investigation by whom, and when? Surely, you're not expecting to only bother with the king, then kick back and relax while someone else does the rest of the work, right?

Honestly, if you want me and I would image most others to even consider taking you seriously, the king is only the beginning. You need to find out who is the rightful lord of what land (according to the specific succession laws of that title), who is the rightful liege of what lord and, arguably most importantly, what exactly are each vassal's obligations and duties to his or her liege. Not just taxes and troop levies, but also things like war duties (such as commanding troops, what supplies, if any, he or she is obligated to provide to the army, in the event that it enters his or her holdings, administering the realm while the king is out on campaign, etc), maintaining highways and/or canals, whether or not a lesser noble is allowed to go to war independent of the king, be it against a fellow English lord or a foreign realm, as well as penalties for failing to meet their obligations. There's a lot more to building a feudal kingdom than merely finding out who should be king and calling it a day. That's only the very beginning of what you must do. For someone who so desperately wants England to return to feudalism for some reason, it's quite frankly a little disappointing that I have to point this out in the first place. You don't seem to realise just what it is you're arguing for, and again, that doesn't exactly inspire confidence.

The English courts will investigate.

Lol. The "English courts". I.e. those things that don't exist in a modern sense in a feudal kingdom, because "court" refers to the local lord himself and his or her courtiers, who, let me remind you, won't exist until they, according to you, investigate and hand out their own lands and titles. Which, let me remind you, they're expected to do despite not existing yet. You see the tiny but nonetheless critical flaw in your otherwise magnificent plan?

Offline Svata

  • Doesn't even fucking know anymore
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1542
  • Gender: Male
  • No, seriously, fuck astrology.

3. But I proved that the wrote it referring to the Christian God


No. You said that. You offered literally zero proof. You gave one small, inconclusive bit of evidence, in saying "most people" were Christian. But one data point does not conclusive proof make! Also, Jefferson was a rapist bastard. Just saying that because it's true and to aggravate your stupid reverence for figures of the past.
"Politician" is the occupational equivalent of "Florida".

Offline Tolpuddle Martyr

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 3716
  • Have you got thumbs? SHOW ME YOUR FUCKING THUMBS!
If a more civilised culture supplanting a less civilised culture is ok with you then you have just rendered your sour grapes about modern British democracy supplanting your government by hang draw and quarter toffy nosed sociopaths null and void.

If your argument about the bible being the work of confused humans trying to interpret the ramblings of an incomprehensible alien were true then it'd have as much value aa that stupid teen doodle you presented earlier. Fuck all!

And the Catholic church changed it's traditions several times before Vatican 2. At one time priests were allowed to marry, then they weren't. At one time geocentricism was heresy, then it wasn't. Like most pimply young nostalgics you pine for a state of affairs that never was.

As for your "heritage" you come across like those dills you meet on St Paddy's day who think that because they skulled some Guinness and rocked out to the Dropkick Murphies they understand Ireland as well as the Irish. You are a fucking American, I doubt you've even met a real Brit which is unfortunate because they have so many words made for the likes of you.

Prat, pillock, berk, tosser, twat, twonk, muppet but most aproros of all-WANKER!!!

How's the conversion business BTW?
« Last Edit: July 18, 2018, 10:49:18 am by Tolpuddle Martyr »

Offline Jacob Harrison

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1571
  • Gender: Male
  • The person who discovered England's true monarch
In England there will be an investigation into it and all rightful heirs to noble titles will be restored to their positions.
Investigation by whom, and when? Surely, you're not expecting to only bother with the king, then kick back and relax while someone else does the rest of the work, right?

Honestly, if you want me and I would image most others to even consider taking you seriously, the king is only the beginning. You need to find out who is the rightful lord of what land (according to the specific succession laws of that title), who is the rightful liege of what lord and, arguably most importantly, what exactly are each vassal's obligations and duties to his or her liege. Not just taxes and troop levies, but also things like war duties (such as commanding troops, what supplies, if any, he or she is obligated to provide to the army, in the event that it enters his or her holdings, administering the realm while the king is out on campaign, etc), maintaining highways and/or canals, whether or not a lesser noble is allowed to go to war independent of the king, be it against a fellow English lord or a foreign realm, as well as penalties for failing to meet their obligations. There's a lot more to building a feudal kingdom than merely finding out who should be king and calling it a day. That's only the very beginning of what you must do. For someone who so desperately wants England to return to feudalism for some reason, it's quite frankly a little disappointing that I have to point this out in the first place. You don't seem to realise just what it is you're arguing for, and again, that doesn't exactly inspire confidence.

The English courts will investigate.

Lol. The "English courts". I.e. those things that don't exist in a modern sense in a feudal kingdom, because "court" refers to the local lord himself and his or her courtiers, who, let me remind you, won't exist until they, according to you, investigate and hand out their own lands and titles. Which, let me remind you, they're expected to do despite not existing yet. You see the tiny but nonetheless critical flaw in your otherwise magnificent plan?

The royal court will investigate.