Tagged: tywysog llywelyn cymru

King of Britons wins pretrial hearing against Bell Helicopter

AmeriCymru: Hi Llywelyn, and many thanks for agreeing to this interview. Can you please explain to our readers who you are and what you are doing?

Llywelyn: Shwmae Ceri a diolch am siarad efo fi. Yes, I am the true Brenin y Brythoniaid or King of the Britons, and I am working to restore our people to their rightful and lawful place on the island of Britannia as the legitimate British people, as our ancestors have claimed would happen for hundreds and hundreds of years now. I created a legal thesis which proved that England does not have a valid, true, and sovereign title to Britain or any lawful right to contract as ‘British’; and also, that succession to British royal titles is a dynastic (family) matter under the customary public international law and the laws which govern the titles. Which is to say that the Kingdoms of England and Scotland, their self-appointed “royal commissions”, and any other parties which are not qualified dynasts under the de jure British dynastic laws have no jurisdiction whatsoever over British royal titles, as the sovereignty of the British state makes the titles ultra vires any non-British dynast. Which is partly why they pretend to be British to this day.

I use the sword and the stone allegory to explain it to people. Only in my version, the sword is called ‘Sofraniaeth’ and the stone is called ‘Britannia’. The Anglo-Saxons, Normans, Angevins, Plantagenets, Stuarts, Lancasters, Yorks, Tudors (Beauforts), Hanovers, and Saxe-Coburg-Gotha-Windsor-Mountbattens can pull all they want on that sword, but only a true Briton has the ability to draw it out.

By claiming the office of Kingship I was able to prove that the diplomatic protest of our ancestors coupled with my actions have preserved our claim to sovereignty to this day. The office of Kingship is one of the three pillars of the true British state. By inheriting the office and titles of the true British Kings we are able to bring attention to the legitimate version of British history, which has been historically discredited by politics driven academics.

Scientific and archeological evidence has exonerated our ancestors and it has turned the English version of history on its head. The entire basis of English sovereignty is based upon ‘the Anglo-Saxon Conquest of Britain’ which was recently proven to be a pseudo-historical event. It had to be recently renamed the ‘Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain’ by academia. Our ancestors codified into our laws that the English had come into their position via fraud. Both the British and the English historical records point to an event which has been called the ‘Night of the Long Knives’. This violation of international law and fraud is the genesis of the English state and their sole basis for sovereignty. A legitimate military conquest would have established a basis for a claim to title in the international law. However, a fraudulent military conquest invented to coverup a historical atrocity and regicide nulls the entire chain of title. The only reason they claim to be British today is because they know the British have the paramount claim to sovereign title in Britain, as a result of the Britons not being legally conquered. Conquest is a legal term. The legal requirements for the alleged Conquest of Britain were never satisfied. Y Gwir yn erbyn y Byd (The truth against the world).

AmeriCymru: You are saying that Queen Elizabeth doesn’t have a right to royal titles because she is not British according to the British laws? Is that right?

Llywelyn: I am saying that the U.K. has already acquiesced that they are not the legitimate British government. I am saying that the Windsors (Saxe-Coburg and Gotha) have been defrauded just like the rest of the world as well. The politicians of England and Scotland had them renounce their German royal titles under the guise of having the legitimate paramount claim to sovereignty. I suspect that England and Scotland have known for a great deal of time about the flaw with their claim to title. There are documented events in history where we can see the English and Scottish Kings attempting to repair their jactitation of title, or slander of title.

England and Scotland allege to have become ‘Great Britain’ in 1707. Yet anyone that knows true British history knows that Prydain Fawr (Great Britain/Britain/Britannia) was in existence long before 1707. The English claim to have conquered ‘Britain’ in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles. Owain Glyndwr describes ‘Great Britain’ and a specific line of Kings to the King of Scotland in the 1400’s.

‘Most esteemed Lord and Royal cousin, may it please you and your royal excellence to know that Brutus, your most noble ancestor and mine, was originally the first crowned King to live in this kingdom of England, which used to be known as Great Britain . Brutus fathered three sons, namely Albanactus and Locrinus and Kamber; you are descended from the direct line of this Albanactus, while the descendants of this Kamber ruled as Kings until the time of Cadwaladr, who was the last crown King of my people, and from whose direct line I, your humble cousin, am descended. Since his death, however, my forebearers and all my people have been, as we still are, subjected and held in bondage by my and your mortal enemies, the Saxons (English)'.

'Owain Glynd ŵ r, a casebook', Livingston & Bollard (2013) Liverpool University Press, p. 478

It should be no surprise then that some hundred years later one Henry Richmond is claiming to descend from this same line with his faux pedigree. Historians today speculate that Henry Earl of Richmond, called Tudor much later in life, was more than likely an English Beaufort from the line of Edmund Beaufort.

“ 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. “

“Owen Tudor: Founding Father of the Tudor Dynasty” Terry Breverton (2017) Amberley Publishing

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.

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, nothing 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”

Another hundred years later propagandist claim that the Scottish King is now the King of “Great Britain” as a result of his “Welsh blood”.

In Percy Enderbie’s 1661 "Cambria Triumphans", Enderbie a self-proclaimed Welshman and 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.

Both the English and Scottish monarchs have played up Welsh roots because they know that the Welsh Kings in reality are the legal heirs to the Ancient British Kings, and it is only this line which has a lawful claim to sovereignty in Britain. This is why all of the different usurping dynasties have attempted to play up any distant Welsh connections or attempted to recreate British establishments and customs like Arthur’s legendary round table. Because these parties know that the Welsh are the true Britons.

Longshanks (Edward I) for instance attempted to make himself appear as the heir to King Arthur via his conquest over the Anglo-Saxons, and often relied on the Briton’s claim to sovereignty in Britannia as the basis for his claim to sovereignty over the Scottish.

“King Augusele carried Arthur’s sword, for the service of Scotland, which he owed to him. Since that time to the present the kings of Scotland have all been subject to the King of Britain.”

–Letter of King Edward I of England to Pope Boniface VIII

Rachealle Sanford, author of 2009 thesis “Edward I and the Appropriation of Arthurian Legend” states:
"The Arthurian writings of authors such as Chrétien de Troyes in the late twelfth century and the subsequent Vulgate Cycle pushed Arthur’s popularity to new heights on both the continent and in England, providing the monarchy, in the words of N. J. Higham, with “a source of political precedent and propaganda to be reformulated for present purposes of political status and aggrandizement.” This would not have been possible, however, if a monarch’s subjects—or his enemies—had not been familiar with the character and plot of Arthurian lore, which the work of Geoffrey of Monmouth and the romance writers assured. The international awareness of the elevated status granted to Arthur by Geoffrey of Monmouth (from warrior to king) allowed the British kings the opportunity to place their royal “ancestor” on the level of Charlemagne, the Christian Frankish Emperor of great renown, and increase their prestige among the other European monarchs. The conception of genealogy and land as an important marker of kinship, and thus of identity—which more fully developed in the Middle Ages—was also particularly important in making such claims, and several kings including Edward IV and Henry VII had their ancestry deliberately traced back to their Welsh roots. Henry VII, in particular, was able to make use of his Tudor ancestry and was promoted in Wales as “the Son of Prophecy,” the claimant to the “crown of Britain.” Even the name “Arthur” could have a political undercurrent when given to a child of the royal family. According to Constance Bouchard, aristocratic children from the eleventh century on were frequently named after relatives, family being a key aspect of medieval identity: “glorious ancestors were a key attribute of glorious aristocrats.” Thus, naming one’s child “Arthur” could easily be construed as a way for the English royalty to play upon the prestige of their supposed ancestor. It is telling that, according to royal genealogies, at least seven royal children were given the name Arthur from the twelfth century to the present. These include: Arthur of Brittany, nephew of Richard I and John; Arthur Plantagenet, illegitimate son of Edward VI; Arthur Tudor, son of Henry VII; Arthur, Duke of Rothway, son of James V; Arthur of Rothway, grandson of James V; Arthur, Duke of Connaught, son of Victoria; and Arthur of Connaught, grand-son of Victor"

Edward I and the Appropriation of Arthurian Legend, Rachealle Marie Sanford (2009) Western Kentucky University, A Capstone Experience/Thesis Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements of University Honors College at Western Kentucky University

AmeriCymru: Care to explain the background to this legal case for our readers?

Llywelyn: Without going into too many details about the case; I can tell you that part of the case stems from discrimination based on race/national origin and harassment based on race/national origin as a direct result of my British (Welsh) heritage. The details of the case should be public information.

My former employer Bell gave me the ultimatum to either stop administering the affairs of the de jure government in exile or face losing my career. Initially Bell offered to help me and move me to England, and I turned the position down for obvious reasons. Sometime after my diplomatic challenge to the UK with our own passport, Bell changed their position and then gave me 24 hours to chose between my ancestry, heritage, and birth right or the career that I had worked to build. I was working as representative for Bell on the V-22 Osprey program, and I was making a handsome salary. I have had a long history with that aircraft, and I was fortunate to have played a small role in the early days. I knew when I took up this fight for our people that I would face great resistance and opposition. The decision to continue fighting for our people rather than quit at the first sign of resistance was one easily made. I didn’t know then how I would provide for my family, but I knew that I would be able to figure it out in time.

AmeriCymru: And what do you do now for income? How have you been able to provide for your family now that you are no longer employed by Bell?

Llywelyn: When I left Bell all I had was the money in my retirement account and a rental house I had purchased a few years before. We took everything we had, sold our house, and used the funds to invest in crypto currencies like Bitcoin, Ethereum, and about a dozen others. Today, I am a multi-millionaire, and my money works for me. I work for our movement full time. They tried to break us, and they only made our movement stronger.

AmeriCymru: Are you alleging that your dismissal was for political reasons connected with your stance on the subject of British/Welsh sovereignty, and the restoration of the true British state?

Llywelyn: Yes, I am. I was a good employee at Bell. Literally the number one employee at one point. I was saving them millions. Bell only had a problem with my performance after I refused to take down my social media and stop my political work. They weren’t happy with the fact that I was deliberately disobeying them and calling into question the sovereignty of their ‘customer’. They tried to make me bow down and I gave them the Welsh two finger salute.

AmeriCymru: To what extent do you suspect that the UK government was involved in your dismissal?

Llywelyn: I do find it odd that Bell tried to move me to England because it would have gone against their own policies since I was already on an international assignment in Japan at the time. I also find the timing of their issues with my political works to be interesting. It was only after the passport challenge that Bell had an issue with me. The UK was unable to arrest me during the passport challenge because I had not broken any laws. They knew that criminal charges against me would have led to me challenging their English jurisdiction and claim to British sovereignty. My DNA can be presented as verification of my identity in any jurisdiction. DNA has been used modernly to resolve disputes regarding the inheritance of noble titles and dynastic rights, as these are family rights and follow the laws of blood (jus sanguinis) in order to qualify as a legitimate dynast or heir. My blood proves that I come from the legitimate line of British Kings.

The only thing they could do was exile me so that I could not meet with my supporters in Cymru. Later they used BBC Cymru to make some propaganda about an American claiming to be the King of Wales. We already know that the “U.K.” uses psychological warfare on all people in Britain to maintain the status quo with their 77 ^th Brigade. It will not surprise me at all if the U.K. becomes implicated in having anything to do with these matters.

AmeriCymru: The Defendant in this case has submitted a 'demurrer'. What is a demurrer and what are the arguments in this particular document?

Llywelyn: Yes, Bell submitted a demurrer. A demurrer is a type of objection. They were trying to get the court to throw out a charge against them. The California Labour codes 1101 & 1102 protects the rights of employees to seek political office. Bell was trying to state that my actions as “His Royal Highness Prince Llywelyn, the lawful King of Britons,” and “Administering the affairs of the exiled Welsh government” were not a “traditional political activity” and that they should not be protected by the California law because they are “international activities” and would more so fall under the international law.

The judge has already issued a decision on their demurrer, and he overruled Bell. He stated in the court documents “ sufficient facts have been pled showing a violation of Labor Code Section 1102 ”, and this is because Bell had threatened to terminate me because of my political actions, which are a protected activity not only under the California labor codes, but in my mind also the U.S. Constitution. As the U.S. Congress did not ratify the amendment that would have made it unlawful for Americans to inherit foreign titles of royalty and nobility. The proposed Constitutional amendment currently pending since 1810, would revoke the citizenship of any person who accepts a foreign title of nobility. However, this Amendment has not yet been ratified by the required majority of the states. A proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States). Therefore, at the moment there is nothing which prohibits an American from receiving titles of nobility from other countries, or from claiming and inheriting foreign titles as a birth right.

Americans are able to join organisations such as Sons of Union Veterans of the Civil War (SUVCW), which was charted by the U.S. Congress, and which membership is based solely on ancestry. How then would it be fair for the same Congress to state that I cannot enjoy the incorporeal hereditament rights which go with my own ancestry? I should not be barred from enjoying the rights which go with my ancestry simply because heads of states friendly to the United States have long pretended that my ancestry was their own; or simply because my ancestry comes with a legal and royal title.

My DNA has been public for several years. It demonstrates that I descend on a direct male line from the same line of British Kings that the English and Scottish Kings have long pretended to descend from. This makes me a legitimate British dynast, capable of legally claiming to be the heir to the true British Kings, according to the dynastic laws that govern the titles, and under the customary public international law. Whereas, parties like the Windsors are legally label “usurpers” under the international law because they do not have the required blood to be a British dynast.

The legal doctrine of CUI LICET QUOD MAJUS, NON, DEBET QUOD MINUS EST NON LICERC ( He who is allowed to do the greater ought not to be prohibited from doing the less. He who has authority to do the more important act ought not to be debarred from doing what is of less Importance. 4 Coke, 23) outlines that I should be allowed to enjoy both sets of rights. But in reality, I have lost some rights as a result of my political actions. I no longer take part in American elections because this would be a violation of the customary international law, as States cannot interfere with other States.

AmeriCymru: Where do things go from here? With the legal case and with the U.K.? What is your end goal?

Llywelyn: My end goal is supreme excellence. That is, to be successful in restoring our people to their rightful place in the world without any fighting. Glyndwr was widely successful with violence, and many assumed that I took up the office of kingship to exercise the legal powers of a Monarch by raising an army against the alleged U.K. However, Glyndwr regained our recognition of sovereignty from the Kingdoms of France, Scotland, and Castile after approximately 117 years of occupation via the powers of statehood and diplomacy, not just the violence. Glyndwr did not have the information and technology available to him that we have today. He flew Y Ddraig Aur on the battlefield symbolic of his subscription to the beliefs of our ancestors. The belief that one day a Briton would be King of Britain again. Today, we have the technology and evidence to prove the claims and the chain of title of our ancestors. My goal is the same that is has been since the beginning. To correct the injustices and the atrocities and to restore things to the way they ought to be, if not for the unlawful interference of others.

AmeriCymru: But where does that put the Windsors? Or Scotland for instance?

Llywelyn: The King is a source of law and must dispense justice. The English and Scottish people today are not the same people that were fighting against our ancestors. I do not hold any ill will towards any person which unknowingly took part in the unlawful actions that have been historically carried on to present day. My dream is for a legitimate union. Independent, free, and sovereign nations, united in history, friendship, defense, and trade. If these revelations of the past have exposed anything I believe that it is that it is time for us to find a better way.

AmeriCymru: How would this affect BREXIT?

Llywelyn: I believe that we should go back to the European Union and explain that recent discoveries have had us investigate our history, and that has shown us that Britain has always had connections with Europe. Britain should be seated near Europe at the table of the family of nations as she always has been. These food and fuel shortages should be an alarm for anyone living in Britain to wake up and find a better way. The people that they believe are looking after them do not have their best interest in mind. These Etonians only care about lining their own pockets and retaining the powers and positions they have unlawfully come into.

AmeriCymru: Any final message for the readers and members of AmeriCymru?

Llywelyn: Ydw, diolch am dy amser. Thank you so much for your support over these last few years. Your messages and your applications to join this movement keep me going. Your support has meant the world to me. I promise that I will never quit on you. My family will never quit on you. We will be restored to our lawful place in the world once again.

AmeriCymru: Hi Tywysog Llywelyn and many thanks for agreeing to this interview. Care to tell us a little about the genealogical background to your claim and title?

Llywelyn: Hello Ceri, and thank you for the opportunity and for what you have done with AmeriCymru. I recognize the duality of national identity and ethnic identity. AmeriCymru has done wonderful things for Welsh-Americans and the preservation of Cymraeg in the United States.

Yes, I would be glad to expand on this for you. I wish more people would take notice of what I am doing with the titles rather than be so fascinated with them, but I do understand the curiosity surrounding them. My claim to the native incorporeal hereditaments of Wales is based on Welsh law, common law, and international laws. Because I was the first qualified person under Welsh law since Owain Glyndwr to claim the titles, and being that the Welsh law states that “the office itself is not divisible”; jurists around the world have recognized me as the de jure or “rightful” owner of the titles. This is also based on the common law principles of estoppel and laches. A party that attempts to claim the titles now is precluded or barred from doing so, because the titles are no longer in abeyance; they have already been claimed and redeemed. The legal principle of laches essentially states failure to assert one’s rights in a timely manner can result in a claim being barred by laches, or by sleeping on one’s rights you can lose your rights. According to the Welsh law it was the right of every Welshman to claim this position if it were ever left vacant so that Wales could always be free. This is a right granted by blood (jus sanguinis) so every Welshman in the world theoretically was a claimant prior to the titles being called out of abeyance. Chwarae teg.

When I first began this endeavor I attempted to locate who the rightful claimant could be. My plan was to lend them my understanding of Welsh and international laws pertaining to de jure sovereignty so that things could be made right in Wales. The search led me to Evan Vaughn, who is a descendent of the House of Aberffraw with a well documented pedigree. Mr. Vaughn was born in Wales, lives in Wales and speaks Welsh, which ideally made him the perfect candidate for people to rally behind. However, after researching him further I was gutted to discover that he stated in interviews he “had no interest” in claiming the titles, and his son had “even less interest” than he did. (Rogers, Byron, “Three Journeys”, “Cambria Magazine” (June 2011), p.30-31) I think most people wanted the next pretender prince to have been born in Wales and fluent in Welsh, as I myself did. However, in over 600 years no one had stepped forward to do what needed to be done and what needed to be done was quite clear to me. I cannot speculate as to why no one else took up this position to finish this fight, but I can tell you from my personal experience this position comes with a great deal of scrutiny and criticism. My whole life I have always been a leader. I’ve studied leadership in university. Whether it was in sports, martial arts, the military, or in my professional life, I have always played the role of the leader. Leaders have to be thick skinned and deal with constant criticism. You have to be able to intelligently defend the decisions you make for your organization, and be able to explain them. Leaders have a birds-eye view of the issues, and when they see a problem they fix it. After discovering the titles were in abeyance and I had a right to claim them I sought out to do so. Elected leaders aside, leaders in other natural circumstances don’t ask to be the leader; they naturally fall into the position. Welsh monarchy is not elective and there is nothing in the Welsh laws to suggest that if the titles were ever in abeyance a conclave should be held to determine who the heir should be. On the contrary the laws on the “edling” or heir are very clearly detailed.

There are a plethora of reasons the titles needed to be taken out of abeyance. Firstly to harness the international legal powers for Wales available to a government-in-exile. To take back the rightful place as a free, sovereign, and independent nation. According to Phillip Marshall Brown, an international lawyer as he is quoted as stating in the “American Journal of International Law”, “There is no automatic extinction of nations. Military occupation may seem final and permanent, and yet prove to be only an interregnum, though a prolonged nightmare for the inhabitants. A nation is much more than an outward form of territory and government. It consists of the men and women in whom sovereignty resides. So long as they cherish sovereignty in their hearts their nation is not dead. It may be prostrate and helpless and yet revive. It is not to be denied the symbols or forms of sovereignty on foreign soil or diplomatic relations with other nations”.

I also sought out to protect the titles from anyone who would attempt to use them for improper reasons, rather than their true noble purposes. In 2007 a man claimed the fons honorum (fount of honor) and kingship to the Isle of Mann and immediately attempted to exchange noble titles for donations to a charity of his choice (David of Mann, Foxnews) . I wanted to ensure Welsh titles and honors would be protected, respected, and reserved for individuals who demonstrate true noble and honorable characteristics, and contribute to Welsh culture and independence; not simply sold to the highest bidder.

Petition for name change: Tywysog Llywelyn Cymru

AmeriCymru: What can you tell us about recent legal developments in Japan?

Llywelyn: Well, there is not a court in the world that you can go to that can grant you a royal title or grant you sovereignty. However, courts can recognize facts in a case as a matter of law (international law). The jurist in the international arbitration in Tokyo recognized my possession of the incorporeal hereditaments as a fact in the matter, and a fact of law pertaining to Welsh, common, and international laws. Since my claim would preclude all other claims I was found to be the rightful owner of the incorporeal hereditaments and the powers that went with them.

These same legal facts were also presented and recognized in the United States Superior Court of California. In the petition for my name change my attorneys stated:

“…I have been found to have inherited incorporeal hereditaments and desire my name to reflect my new status.”

There is a widespread belief that in the United States citizens can change their names to just about anything they want, but there are several cases that have been denied on the assumption of a status or noble and royal titles. It is unlawful to change your name to one that could defraud another person.

Petition denied on the basis of a status:

"Courts similarly exhibit concern for members of the public in cases in which the names requested have the potential to confuse or mislead, even in the absence of nefarious intent. For example, in In re Thompson, the New York Superior Court denied a man's petition to change his name to Chief Piankhi Akinbaloye." (57 UCLA Law Review 313 (2009) pg. 313)

Petition denied on the basis of nobility:

"In re Jama, 272 N.Y.S.2d 677 (Civ. Ct. 1966). The petitioner wanted to add "von" before Jama, because his father had told him that “von Jama” was their family name. Id. at 677. The court also noted that it chose to deny the petition because many Germans with "von" in their name were nobles (though the decision does not say that "von" was in fact a title)." (57 UCLA Law Review 313 (2009) pg. 317)

My final ruling from the California court reads, “…It appears to the satisfaction of the court that all the allegations in the petition are true and sufficient and that the petition should be granted. The court orders the name of Lawrence Jones changed to Tywysog Llywelyn Jones Cymru (Prince Llywelyn Jones of Cymru)". It is safe to state that Judge Sim von Kalinowski, who granted the final ruling, concurred with the reason for my name change as the inheritance of royal titles and the change in legal status. Pretender princes, also known as claimants to occupied or usurped thrones are sovereign subjects of public international law.

Subjects of International Law can be described as “those persons or entities that possess international personality”. Ultimately my petition for name change was deemed lawful because I could not be fraudulently impersonating myself. I am who I say I am.

Although now I do have two court orders recognizing my titles, international recognition does not stem from these court orders but rather from countries that adhere to international laws on governments in exile.

AmeriCymru: You believe that Wales is owed billions in reparations by the English government. What specifically do you believe that Wales is owed for? Care to speculate as to the total amount?

Llywelyn: Yes I do. Even by medieval standards Wales did not surrender, meaning there was never debellatio; which would have then made it acceptable under the standards of the time to annex Wales. Since that time Wales has maintained a separate national identity, despite overwhelming attempts to assimilate the culture. The maintenance of that culture and separate national identity has preserved the right to independence. The doctrine of “stole it fair and square” is not an acceptable one. They can try to argue that England annexed Wales by acquiescence after the publishing of the “Laws in Wales Act” but there is overwhelming historical evidence that shows that was a result of direct use of force or threat of force. The doctrine of “might does not make right” has been widely upheld in the modern world. King George VI even stated, “might is right is a primitive notion”. I believe that Wales is owed for centuries of unlawful occupation and subjugation. Owed for the suspension of the operations of the native government, self-determination is the right of every free nation. The act of the suspension of that right by one nation to another, simply in self-interest should lead to sanctions. I believe that Wales is owed for resources that have been removed, and for resources that continue to be removed.

Pertaining to the monetary amount Wales would receive as reparations it would really depend on where the line is drawn for how far back reparations would go. That is something both parties would have to agree on. Even without reparations I feel Wales will be in better shape when she is finally paid a fair price for the water, power, and other exports that are sent to England. The amount of financial aid that England currently supplies to Wales is far eclipsed by the amount of resources that England has been taking at no cost up until now. If Wales was really dragging down their economy they would have freed her long ago.

AmeriCymru: Do you have a legal strategy for reclaiming this money?

Llywelyn: Yes I do have a plan I am following. By re-establishing the native government and quieting the claims of others with the litigation and judgments I have received; I have made it to where the other side cannot deny the current state of the situation any longer.

According to the jurist Oppenheim, once sovereignty is recognized it cannot be withdrawn. External sovereignty cannot be recognized with the initial recognition of the government representing the State, and once recognition of sovereignty is granted it “is incapable of withdrawal”. Now that there is recognition of the reestablishment of this position, reclaiming reparations would happen in mediations with the UK or through sanctions with the United Nations.

AmeriCymru: Do you believe that Wales should pursue full independence?

Llywelyn: Of course I do, I most passionately do. I think that independence is far more important than reparations. There is not a price you could put on what independence will bring. Self-determination is the right of any free government. To be denied that right and to have to ask an invading neighbor for permission to perform normal acts of state is wrong. While at the same time that neighbor is removing your resources, working to eliminate your culture, leaving thousands of you to live in poverty, and teaching a false history about Wales in your schools. Wales was not always a principality, it was not always subjugated. Wales achieving independence corrects the wrongs of the past. It changes the story of our culture from one of being occupied and illegally annexed to one of perseverance and unwavering faith in the face of overwhelming odds. It changes the meaning of all the Edwardian castles in Wales from symbols of English conquest to symbols of the Welsh identity, endurance and overcoming. Freedom and independence for Wales justifies all of the lives that were sacrificed fighting in the pursuit thereof.

There are far too many reasons to mention why Wales should urgently pursue independence; but if only for one reason alone then, that the people of Wales were all born free, free to self-govern and free to self determination. Free to be free from an invading neighbor.