User blog:Johnny Goldtimbers/Prime Minister's Address, 6th of August, 1748

6 AUGUST 1748

WESTMINSTER HALL

OFFICE OF THE PRIME MINISTER

It has come to my attention that there is a plot against His Majesty the King. This act of treachery is the ramification of Parliament's legal removal of one Samuel Harrington from the office of Lord Marshal of the British East India Company. I am appalled to witness William Brawlmartin's complete absence of discretion. We knew he was a proud supporter of Samuel Harrington, but we believed him otherwise.

I will first formally correct Brawlmartin's fallacies in his formal declaration of treason.


 * "While KING John Scurvysmythe was in power, Samuel Harrington had formally requested for the East India Trading Company to be lifted from the royal charter of which it was funded on. To which the current king of agreed to, thus privatizing the East India Company from Great Britain."

I shall pretend that statement is true for the moment, upon Samuel Harrington's absence from the field of duty, more notably his termination which is often interpreted as one's death, I was Second-in-Command of the East India Trading Company at that current time. Shares were not even spoken of on the game, so do not claim that you (Brawlmartin) inherited Samuel's "shares" upon his death, because there was no mention of it. Samuel only began to mention shares when his job was at risk. He had to fabricate some form of ownership over the East India Company to give himself credibility. That alone is pathetic, but I did acknowledge its existence, so be thankful for that. Moving on, the King named me the next Lord Marshal, which I then reformed to be later known as the title, "Lord Governor". The Lord Governor (Lord Marshal) then at that current time officially became the King's Representative, and was at that current time then his subordinate, that is if we desire to acknowledge Samuel's claim concerning the removal of the Royal Charter. One of my first acts as Lord Governor was to re-nationalise the company and bring the company under indirect British bureaucratic rule.

The King desired to do this after Samuel refused to fight a war that he originally desired to start. Any man who starts a fight, then leaves his mate to whom he brought into the quarrel to finish the fight, is no man at all. He is a coward.


 * Here is Samuel's desire to start the war, with England by his side.


 * Here is Samuel's desire to withdraw from the war, leaving England to fend on her own.

Samuel's page(s), "The East India Trading Company" on both the GFW (PPW), and this wiki bare that "The Company was granted a Royal Charter by Queen Elizabeth I on December 31, 1600.", and "The government owned no shares and had only indirect control.". Those are the unedited words of Samuel Harrington. NO MENTION was made by Samuel on those two pages that any King had cancelled that Royal Charter. You would believe that would be considered a pivotal piece of information that Samuel should have added to the page, but he did not.
 * "Therefore to this year currently, Samuel Harrington does indeed NOT answer to the King of England and is not a subject of the crown, also recoginizing that the East India Company cannot be under Great Britain's control whether or not you pass an act of parliment to do so. You would need an formal agreement and acceptance from the owner of the East India Company which Great Britain DOES NOT HAVE, in this Roleplay. Therefore the argument over Lord Harrington being a subject of the King and not taking orders or commands does not make him Loyal to the King but rather the question should be is "Has Samuel commited an act that would be treasonous to Great Britain?" The answer is simply No. He hasn't."

Samuel was a subject of the crown, before he decided to rebel against the King. To be in fact, Samuel was the King's representative as the Lord Marshal should be. Hence why Samuel was taking orders from the King in this blog.

If the King had no dictation over Samuel's position, then why was this blog even made? The King removed Samuel as Lord Marshal, therefore giving him authority over the East India Company. Samuel made no mention to any "shares" in his blog. Samuel's creation of "shares" was to simply demonstrate his "control" over the company, when I was Lord Governor. Truly a vacuous attempt to separate the company from its mother country.

My reforms when I was Lord Governor/Lord Marshal recognised the Company's political functions and clearly established that the "acquisition of sovereignty by the subjects of the Crown is on behalf of the Crown and not in its own right." Any lands the East India Company acquired belong to the King. Simple as that. I also established government control of the company's political policy through a regulatory board responsible to Parliament.


 * "Johnathan Goldtimbers had also replied that "The King can do what he wants". Which Is pityful excuse for a dying era. He had also mentioned that another reason they do want him in power is because he had started and ignited the main cause for the tensions between England and Spain. Not true. After sometime of verbal hearsay, we invited Pearson to the call who elaborated on the fact that actually Benjamin Macmorgan and Andrew Mallace were the cause due to some fued. Pearson said here and I quote "Samuel was not the catalyst of war between Spain and Its entities and England"."

The King acts through Parliament. The King uses his ministers in his government to enact laws with the approval of the people of Great Britain. Samuel did not start the initial flame that sparked the everlasting war with Spain. He simply added to the fire.

Samuel's direct words from this blog.


 * "I (Samuel) confronted him (Pearson) about it(Pearson's insults towards Samuel), and he (Pearson) began insulting me (Samuel) to my face. it was on that date, that the EITC declcared war on Pearson. We (The EITC) declared a war that would literally destroy the entire Caribbean"


 * "I (Samuel) had recieved approval from John Breasly, who had only recently become king, to declare war. And so... it was on."

Again, if you didn't understand my first point before, because you are illiterate, Any man (Samuel) who starts a fight, then leaves his mate (Great Britain) who he (Samuel) brought into the fight to finish the fight, is no man at all. He (Samuel) is a coward.

If Samuel, the mighty Lord Marshal of the East India Company had to seek approval from the King of Great Britain, then what does that tell us about their relationship? Samuel acted upon the King's behalf, Samuel acted in the King's favour. Samuel had to have been a subordinate to the King. There is no questioning that. If you want to try to debate that the East India Company is a completely separate entity from Great Britain, then you are wrong.

Even when KING John Scurvysmythe had removed the Royal Charter freeing the company from any obligation, any control by the King, which that on its own is not even documented or even hinted in Samuel's vast writings concerning the East India Company, Samuel still took orders from John Breasly, the current King of Great Britain. It is truly pathetic that Samuel would try to obfuscate history and attempt to bend it in his favour.


 * ""Because he's not popular". What I asked as to why he would not allow Samuel Harrington to be in power In his eyes. If we choose our leaders on upon popularity and not actual previous contributions, then we're just as unwise as those who gained power that way. But in this case you could say the contributions are Samuel has done is filled with fallacies and twisted truths. Due to the King of England and Johnathan Goldtimbers."

He isn't popular because he disobeyed the King's orders to continue fighting Spain. He isn't popular because he got HIMSELF terminated. Pearson, who you brought in as a "credible" source stated that he himself, and Leon cannot hack, Leon acquired accounts by asking for their username and password, by promising the unfortunate individual, a legendary weapon, or to lvl their character, etc, etc. I never said that Samuel fell under that category. You assumed that I believed Samuel was that ignorant. It doesn't matter in the end, Samuel was still terminated. With his termination, Beckett's Elites was destroyed, the Company was thrown into chaos, and civil war raged on, until I took command, as the next Lord Marshal. For my efforts in rebuilding the company, strengthening its union with Great Britain, and its relationship with the King, I was appointed Prime Minister. All those who aided me in reviving the East India Company were rewarded with government positions. It was the least the King could do to thank his LOYAL subjects.
 * "The Act of Parliaments: Concerns toward the EITC, and Subjugation of the EITC are invalid. The excuses and claims to have Lord Marshal Samuel Harrington removed from office of the EITC are invalid."

Any Act of Parliament is law. If you believe that Parliament has no such power, then why in history has there been the "East India Company Act 1773", the "East India Company Act 1784 (Pitt's India Act)", the "Act of 1786", the "East India Company Act 1793 (Charter Act)", the "East India Company Act 1813 (Charter Act)", the "Government of India Act 1833", the "English Education Act 1835", the "Government of India Act 1853", and finally the "Government of India Act 1858" which called for the complete liquidation of the British East India Company's assets. Samuel was a subject of the crown. His Fort Righteous shall be confiscated by the Royal Navy.


 * "Johnathan Goldtimbers and King John Breasly are a dying breed of power. You're King is inactive and literally is not apart of this roleplay anymore. The corruption found within this roleplay directed to the instances of Harrington and etc is enourmous. Pearson knows this as well."

You are using Pearson as a credible source for roleplay, a man that claimed nearly all the world, by seizing his children's nations. That is all I will comment on your pity opinion.


 * "I believe King William Yellowbones will wipe the corruption clear from It's smoke early ignited from a time ago, starting with you're King, John Breasly."

Parliament legally removed Samuel Harrington from the East India Company, so you desire to illegally remove John Breasly from Great Britain? Quite a bold move. Now you are in checkmate.


 * "Signed,


 * ~ William Brawlmartin"

Thank you for signing your own death warrant. You saved me the time and the ink.

Also,

BY DECREE OF HIS MAJESTY THE KING,

William Brawlmartin, William Yellowbones, and Samuel Harrington are formally declared traitors to the Crown of Empire. Their ranks, titles, and positions are hereby stripped from their persons, and their properties confiscated by His Majesty's government. This encourages subjects throughout the Empire, including those in Great Britain, to report anyone carrying on "traitorous correspondence" with the rebels so that they can be punished.

From the Desk of the Prime Minister of Great Britain,



From the Office of the Chancellery,

From the Office of the Secretary at War,

From the Office of the Exchequer,

Jeremiah Garland

Signed His Majesty the King,