King and Crown: an examination of the legal foundation of the British king

'The Crown' has been described as a 'term of art' in constitutional law. This is more than misleading, obscuring the pivotal legal position of the king, which in modern times has been conveniently ignored by lawyers and politicians alike. -- This work examines the legal processes by which a king is made, tracing those processes from the earliest times to the present day. It concludes that the king is made by the selection and recognition by the people, his taking of the Oath of Governance, and his subsequent anointing. (The religious aspects of the making of the king, though of considerable legal significance, are not examined herein, because of space constraints.) -- The Oath of Governance is conventionally called the 'Coronation Oath'-which terminology, while correctly categorising the Oath by reference to the occasion on which it is usually taken, has led by subliminal implication to an erroneous conclusion by many modern commentators that the Oath is merely ceremonial. -- This work highlights the legal implications of the king's Oath of Governance throughout history, particularly in times of political unrest, and concludes that the Oath legally :- conveys power from the people to the person about to become king (the willingness of the people so to confer the power having been evidenced in their collective recognition of that person); - bestows all the prerogatives of the office of king upon that person; - enshrines the manner in which those prerogatives are to be exercised by the king in his people(s)' governance; and that therefore the Oath of Governance is the foundation of the British Constitution. -- All power and prerogative lie with the king, who as a result of his Oath of Governance is sworn to maintain the peace and protection of his people(s), and the king can not, in conscience or law, either do, or allow, anything that is in opposition to the terms of that Oath.