The surprising role of subinfeudation in society
The modern world seems corporate and commercial, but has a hidden feudal basis
Why do local councils endlessly pursue us for property taxes (i.e. a levy on seeking shelter), clean air taxes (i.e. a levy on travel), and business licenses (i.e. a levy on earning a living)? Where did our purported obligation to pay them to exist on the land of our birth come from? How come they seem to be immune from accountability when they deny us our basic constitutional rights? One possible answer might surprise you: subinfeudation. Wossat, you ask? Well, to find out, we need to go back into English history.
A friend who has studied the era of the English Civil War suggests that things may not be as they seem. We once had a feudal society in England where there was allegiance to your local lord of the manor, and armies could be raised through the aristocracy. The core of the feudal system was the ownership of all land by the monarch, who then granted fiefs to nobles, and in turn owed allegiance on military matters to the king or queen. Land ownership and military affairs were intimately entangled.
This system became very corrupt, and ended with the execution of king Charles I in 1649. (We seem to have a bit of recurring problem with dodgy regal Charlies.) England then became a Commonwealth, arguably a kind of degenerate form of republic crossed with a benevolent dictatorship.
As my friend notes to me:
There was an Act of Parliament passed in 1649 “prohibiting the proclaiming any person to be King of England or Ireland, or the Dominions thereof”. It was motioned on 30 January, the day Charles I was legally executed for treason, and passed into law on 17th March 1649. A search that was started by a constitutional lawyer a few years ago found the Act in British History Online, in Acts and Ordinances of the Interregnum, 1642-1660. Mention of it was also found recently in Wikipedia, but it is nowhere to be found in the government statutes records, and neither is there any record of its repeal. Its elusive nature might have something to do with its uncomfortable truth.
I hadn’t heard of it either. You can see why the 1649 Act is not emphasised in our history lessons, as it says what needs to be done to deal with a treasonous government enabled by a corrupt judiciary. The text outlines an enactment by the Parliament, aimed at preventing the proclamation or recognition of any person as King or Chief Magistrate of England, Ireland, or their dominions without the free consent of the people in Parliament. So “we the people” are sovereign, and act as principal, delegating this sovereignty to government, our agent. You might consider this a parallel to the preamble of the American Declaration of Independence, and the lawful right to overthrow tyrannical government.
I won’t reproduce the full original text in Ye Olde English, but rather summarise its meaning with the help of our friend ChatGPT: “This measure is taken to avoid potential disturbances to public peace following the execution of Charles Stuart, who had been condemned for treasons, tyrannies, and murders during the recent wars. Violation of this act is deemed treason against the Commonwealth, punishable by death and other penalties associated with high treason. The enactment empowers officers and well-affected individuals to apprehend offenders and bring them to justice.”
The struggle seems all too familiar! My friend elaborates:
Then we had the era of Cromwell who, after Charles I’s death during the Interregnum in 1653, took the land out of its Overlord feudal control and gave the people Allodial title (land without a lord) in perpetuity. A read through the statutes of the realm 1640-1660 gives the best illustration of this period in history (British History online).
After Cromwell died of typhoid fever in September 1658, the elite nobility and the military under the command of General Monck conspired to give the throne to Charles II. They helped him to reclaim the land, grants, and leases from the people by force. They also put him in charge of the treasury to be sure that taxes would be levied in the militia’s favour. However, although they couldn’t repeal the 1649 Act for fear of committing treason, they did try to erase the memory of the Interregnum as though it were an aberration in time.
The “problem'“ they faced, then and now, was legitimising their being gangsters seeking to tax us for “protection money”, with the treasury being the nexus of political, banking, and military power. This little moral matter was thought to be overcome by the passing of the Act of Indemnity and Oblivion Act in 1660 — a credit to the legal headline writers of the time. What this did was to “officially forget” everything that happened in the Interregnum period between monarchies, including the liberation of the masses from feudal land rents.
Feudalism was quietly reintroduced in modified form, with the King taking full control through the forceful reclamation of the land. The monarchy acted as “The Crown”, the parallel corporate form, but without any consideration to the people. It means all modern councils might be just be agents of the Crown corporation operating as feudal subsidiaries in “subinfeudation”, but they cannot ever admit it. The Crown has pretended to own all the land again for centuries. Your “freehold” is not a true allodial title to the soil, but a form of lease.
We just keep going along with their subinfeudation ruse (until we don’t). If we knew this hidden history to be the case, maybe we might regard our present British state as being less than wholly legitimate? None of us own anything registered under the Crown, and yet some are happy enough with it, as they have no memory of it being any other way. Sounds familiar? That means charges like Council Tax are not actually taxes, and not even fines for seeking shelter, but rather are feudal rent for your “fake title” to your home, based on your peasant duty to your military master.
As my erudite friend puts it:
In 1649, Charles I was executed, the monarchy abolished, and a Commonwealth established in its place. The Indemnity and Oblivion Act was a damage limitation exercise, ordering that the Interregnum (and 1649’s events) be legally forgotten, due to it being a legal and constitutional embarrassment to the Crown going forward. The usual MO was deployed, making an example of a few dissenters by executing them for ‘treason’. Those who had voted for the legal execution of Charles I were silenced with the return of their estates, but lived with the fear that they risked the same fate if they spoke out. Indemnity shut down the dissent, and oblivion was to erase the memory of it.
“Pay to play” is not new, and effectively the nobility was blackmailed and bribed into submission to this neo-feudal arrangement to endlessly harvest the people’s energy via state taxes. There is a fine line between legitimate funding of the people and a protection racket. With Covid and Net Zero we are paying protection money to our enemies, who are attacking us, so history seems to repeat over and over. You can see why the present powers might not want this Indemnity and Oblivion Act to be publicised!
The key embarrassment for the restored monarchy was their commandeering of the throne, as well as their hijack of the land, which was all enabled by the military. It was effectively a combined crown and military coup, it being a mutually beneficial relationship to parasitise the people through taxation. The new king made himself the head of the treasury, and he made the statutes to fill his and the military’s pockets. My understanding of subinfeudation is that it is a kind of overlord king feudal power that is trusted to its local authority agents of the overlord (otherwise ‘tenants’) who act as its subsidiary, in order to levy taxes.
This Reformation era monarchy-military alliance was the prototype for the modern military-industrial complex. Seems like we might have had a problem with a “deep state” established to enslave us via war and debt for rather a long time! This subinfeudation model also explains why council tax uses medieval terms like “hereditament” and “dwelling”. The “obligation” of us serfs to pay is one derived from feudal constructs, which is why it seems so alien to us who imagine we live in a constitutional democracy.
Now we can see why the councils are so keen to decry “freeman of the land arguments”, as this is their great bogeyman. If you remember the alloidal land rights your ancestors were granted under the Interregnum, and recover the memory of the subsequent state’s illegitimacy from oblivion, then you might not act life a serf any more. Council Tax is completely dependent on you being unaware to your own alloidal land title, and accepting the claims of the impostor Crown to force you to pay rent.
Check out their own propaganda on why they absolutely have to deny you the most basic rights like due process and equality under the law:
A number of people adhere to the mistaken belief that they can be exempt from all sorts of obligations because they have learnt how to claim some magical status. Local authorities impose and enforce a number of inconvenient obligations on their residents, and consequently see more than their fair share of such beliefs.
They claim to get their authority via statute, but where does that statute get its authority from? Subinfeudation! The council being a vassal of a feudal state is what erases your “magical status” as a free man. Just look at the long list of “serf sins” they offer:
belief in existence of a living man separate from his legal fiction,
claims to alloidal title to your unregistered car as being possible,
resistance to vaccination mandates and control over your own body,
refusal to consent to lockdowns and home imprisonment without trial,
belief in common law courts (or any common law),
validity of long-established rights in Magna Carta,
that councils are corporations (which they own legislation says they are),
the enforceability of the Bill of Rights,
that you have a right to charge them when they commit harms against you,
or that judges state they are acting under oath when there is doubt.
It also explains why councils are keen to denounce older statutes as “outdated”, and pick and choose which law should be enforced. The memory of our brief freedom from feudalism may have been consigned to official oblivion, but the evidence of it was too hard to erase. The Act of Indemnity and Oblivion 1660 is the cover-up that exposes the underlying fraud that has been perpetrated. They have no true authority or power! It is all a scam, and it only works for as long as you believe their lies. Centuries of treason have accumulated since the hijack of the land, but the evidence of subinfeudation is everywhere if you know what to look for.
This also suggests that “peripheral”, “decorative”, or “legacy” structures in our constitution, like the Privy Council or the Remembrancer in Parliament, are actually figural parts of a covert feudal system still in operation. The former originates from the Norman conquest, and William the Conqueror, who harmed our ancient liberties and customs. He seems to have obtained unearned good PR, as the victors always write the history books. The latter ensures that the Holy Roman Empire, Vatican, Jesuits, Order of the Garter, Knights of Malta, and Knights Templar are preserved above those of the people of England and beyond.
We are endlessly being occupied and exploited, and military language and structures have taken over society. Corporations are essentially military in structure, and mirror the methods of armies. Meanwhile, councils seem to operate with impunity outside of the normal corporate regulations, like having to disclose their details on correspondence. It all starts to make sense when you realise the modern authorities are getting their real authority via subinfeudation and not statute. Everything is set up to drain the working people of their sovereignty and title, and hand it over to others.
The Act of Indemnity and Oblivion 1660 is one of the most important ever passed by Parliament, and yet it is unheard of, as it condemns us to permanent tenancy on our own land. It enabled a perpetual class of rentiers, like modern local councils, at our expense. Authorities treat us like serfs because they truly are landlords acting on behalf of the Crown corporation, the City of London’s invader that steals our English soil and sweat via unlawful feudal taxes!
However, this is not the end of the matter, and I look forward to offering some subinfeudation intrigue that has been uncovered that is very much of contemporary interest. We have a belligerent government that is occupying our country, and right now they are still working hard to keep you from knowing your history, and claiming your rights. Share widely this knowledge of subinfeudation and the Act of Indemnity and Oblivion 1660. They are keys to our escape from feudalism and return to freedom.
Future of Communications is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.