The following is corrective advice from the nation’s authority on the English Constitution. It is theTRUTH about your English Constitution.
The government sponsored book, “Inside Britain” (http://www.citizenshipfoundation.org.uk/main/resource.php?s302) purporting to inform about our constitution, is erroneous, uninformed and misleading. Its content paves the way for corrupt governance and is extremely dangerous.
Dear Mr Thornton,
Your book “Inside Britain – A Guide to the UK Constitution”, starts out wrong from the cover. There is no UK or British Constitution; there are two constitutions in Great Britain. The most important is the English Constitution. By the grace of King Edward III, the Scots King David who had been captured in battle by King Edward was allowed to return to Scotland to rule Scotland as a vassal King to King Edward. King Edward allowed King David to keep Scottish law.
On page 7
You state it was never formally declared that the King or Queen must agree any proposal of new law passed by both Houses of Parliament. This is simply NOT true. Parliament is a tripartite agreement. The Commons originate law, the Lords vet the law and dependent only upon their conscience they send it back for amendment, reject it or give it their assent. The bill then goes to the King or Queen who according to His or Her own judgement and conscience will reject the bill or give it the Assent. If the King or Queen refuses the Assent, the bill is dead and there is no power on Earth that can change that. Sir Mathew Hale Chief Justice in his 1713 “Prerogatives of the King” deals with this subject very clearly.
Far from the Assent being last refused by the Sovereign by Queen Anne in 1707 with the Scottish Militia bill, Queen Victoria refused the Assent to a bill on homosexuality which mentioned lesbianism as she refused to believe that women would do those things and King Edward VII refused the assent to the first presentation of the Parliament Act on the grounds it was unconstitutional and removed a protection from his subjects.
Joseph Chitty in his book “A Treatise on the Law of the Prerogatives of the Crown and the Relative Duties and Rights of the Subject” 1820, describes the prerogative to grant the assent or reject a bill as a high and incommunicable prerogative. This must by definition outlaw the automatic assent.
It has become accepted practice for the King or Queen to ask the leader of the party with the most seats to form a government. Accepted practice is NOT law. The King or Queen can if he or she so choose, appoint an unelected Cockney orange seller to form a government.
On page 8
You state Magna Carta 1215 is one of the oldest written documents that has shaped the UK Constitution. Magna Carta 1215 was a reissue of the Charter of Liberties 1100, which was itself a reissue of the laws of William I, which was a reissue of the laws of Edward the Confessor, which were themselves a reissue of the first book of English Constitutional Law, the Dome promulgated by King Alfred the Great in 886. Magna Carta 1215 was not a law as such. It was a contract between King John I and his subjects. As a contract between the King and the subject, it is very plainly beyond the reach of Parliament – which was not even a party to the arrangement. So it CANNOT be amended or repealed legally.
We are a Monarchy. We do not have citizens
You state that the UK Parliament is supreme. This is not true. Queen Elizabeth II is, by law. That is, the Common Law of Kingship as given by Sir John Fortescue Chief Justice in 1420 in his book “On the Laws and Governance of England” as well as the 1559 Act of Supremacy and by Parliamentary vote on the 8th March 1784 when a vote was taken on where ultimate Sovereignty lay – either with the Lawfully anointed King George III or with the House of Commons as the elected House. The King won the vote and by Parliamentary vote, absolute supremacy lies with Queen Elizabeth II as our lawfully anointed Queen.
The Common and Constitutional law are Higher Law with the ability to strike down any bill which has passed through Parliament and which is against common right and reason, which is repugnant or impossible to perform. See Chief Justice Sir Edward Coke 1628. Far from having no special significance, these are the most important laws we have and ALL are beyond the legal reach of Parliament.
On page 9
You state the separation of powers is not as clear cut as in countries with a written constitution. First, that is just absolutely not true. The executive Parliament make law, but have no say over how the police or courts implement that law. The police and courts are not answerable to parliament but to the law and only to the law. Using always as their guide, the Common and Constitutional higher law.
Our rights and responsibilities are very well taken care of by our Common and Constitutional law. Historically, we gave it to mainland Europe whose record on human rights was appalling. The French Revolution and Nazi Germany being cases in point. Once again we are subjects not citizens.
All of our rights are absolute. King Alfred the Great hanged 40 judges who conducted unfair trials. Our right to a fair trial, freedom of expression and assembly cannot be withdrawn. Kings who have tried this have been punished with death. William II (Rufus), Edward II Charles I and James II who was forced to flee the Kingdom.
On page 10
You state Magna Carta was an agreement drawn up between King John and the Barons. This is not true. Magna Carta 1215 was drawn up by Archbishop Stephen Langton and placed before a meeting of the Estates of England and then presented to King John to sign. The Estates of England are the most authoritive law giving body in the Kingdom. They comprise the Lords Spiritual, the Lords Temporal and the Commonality of England who were at Runnymede in their thousands.
Our membership of the European Union is now and always has been illegal under our Common and Constitution Law. As a result all EU Treaties are treasonable acts by the government ministers who signed them. We are thus NOT part of the EU and the ministers’ outright treason ensures that as treason has no legitimacy.
On page 57
Citizenship of the European Union. If you are a subject of Queen Elizabeth II YOUR sole duty of loyalty is to Her Majesty and her Kingdom. We cannot without seeking naturalisation in another country, owe any other duty. If we do seek dual Nationality, our first loyalty under international and English law is to England and its Queen. The Maastricht Treaty purports to make Queen Elizabeth II a citizen of Europe. This is a constitutional impossibility, the only entity above England’s Kings or Queens is God. This was decided by a meeting of the Estates of England meeting in May 1366 – “Select Documents of English Constitutional History”, Macmillan 1921.
On page 64
You state the Queen cannot be prosecuted. Neither the Sovereign nor anyone else in England is above the law. Chief Justice Henry DeBracton 1250 ruled that the King is beneath no man but he is beneath God and rules England as Gods Lieutenant and according to Gods Laws. But he is beneath the law for it is by the law that he becomes King. I would point out that King Charles I was put on trial and executed for his crimes. Crown immunity is a myth put about by Government. In England we work on the general assumption that the King is perfect and can do no wrong. So when wrong occurs, we hang the Kings wicked and evil advisors. Ministers should take note of that.
What exactly is her job
Queen Elizabeth II is supreme governor of England. ALL her other titles, supremacies, prerogatives and superiorities stem from the fact she is first and foremost the Queen of England.
Constitutionally, the Sovereign is Head of State and has the final say on all laws passed by parliament. The Sovereign has the absolute right to accept a bill passed by both houses or to reject or return the bill for amendment. The Sovereign is the fount of all law in this Kingdom. There is no other Kingdom or person on the face of this planet to whom the Kings of England take second place. Not now, not ever.
Or at least that is the constitutional position. The facts as they are today are very different. Since 1714, the House of Commons has been on a power grab. They claim as the elected house that sovereignty lies with them and not the Crown. THEY ARE ABSOLUTELY WRONG.
Sovereignty lies as it always has, with the Crown. This was confirmed after a vote in the House after King George III fought a 20 year running battle with the Commons as to who was sovereign he as King or the Commons as the elected house. The King won the vote and was confirmed as a fully sovereign King by the House of Commons who withdrew their claim to be sovereign. Indeed, any other result would have hanged them all for high treason contrary to the 1351 Treason Act.
We are told by Parliament that the last time a bill was rejected by the sovereign was in 1707 when Queen Anne rejected the Scottish Militia Act. This is far from the truth. Queen Victoria refused a bill on homosexuality because it contained references to lesbians on the grounds she did not believe women could engage in such activity. The bill had to be rewritten with all reference to lesbianism removed before it received the Assent. King Edward VII refused what became the 1911 Parliament Act because it was unconstitutional and removed a protection from his subjects.
Since 1960 the Royal Assent has been granted by a committee of 5 Barons appointed by the government of the day to give what has become known as the automatic assent.
How did we reach this sorry state?
It started a long time ago in 1609 when the House of Commons first tried it on when they wrote to the House of Lords claiming to be the Knights, Burgess’s and Barons of the High Court of Parliament. The House of Lords replied saying they would never accept the Commons as Barons and that without them (the Lords) they were no court.
Next in 1667 the House of Commons told the House of Lords they could not amend a money bill. A ten year argument between both Houses ensued until in 1677 the House of Lords agreed not to amend any money bills. This was the start of the problems we have today.
In 1714 Queen Anne died and King George I came to the Crown. He spoke no English and so unlike all previous Kings and Queens, he did not attend parliament or cabinet meetings. So the government of the day in the Commons were left to do as they liked. King George II spent his entire reign complaining that his ministers were Kings in his Kingdom and that he was discouraged from attending parliament or cabinet meetings. We know that King George III fought back and in part reversed that trend. On the 8th March 1784 a vote was taken in Parliament and the King won the vote. So Queen Elizabeth II is the fully sovereign Queen of England.
We have already dealt with Queen Victoria and King Edward VII. When King George V came to the throne, he was told by a government minister that he kept all his prerogatives but could not use any of them unless he had the backing of a government minister. When the King accepted this, it was the final nail in the coffin of England. At the same time, Asquith put through the 1911 Parliament Act which purported to remove from the House of Lords their ability to reject a bill. So we now have a situation where Asquith (a Fabian prime minister) had usurped the Royal Prerogative, a clear act of high treason contrary to the 1351 Treason Act and a clear act of the subversion of the constitutional arrangements of Parliament. The 1911 Parliament Act was a clear case of High Treason against the Constitutional arrangements of Parliament at English Common Law. Similarly, the 1999 House of Lords Act which removed the hereditary Peers from their rightful place in Parliament is also High Treason. Every Parliament since 1911 has been an unlawful assembly and all laws passed since then are void under English Common Law.
This is why our work of pursuing the police into prosecuting those who purport to be government ministers over the last 40 years for high treason is so important – not just to us but more importantly, our children and their children add infinitum.
Our object to get England back under the rule of English Common and Constitutional Law.
Our means the bringing to justice those traitors in the Palace of Westminster past and present.
Our intention to hand England back to Queen Elizabeth II and to see that she is educated into the English Constitutional and Common Law.
To reconstitute Parliament as our forefathers intended it to be with all its checks and balances in place for our protection.
To reject all foreign interference in England, to dump the EU and to cease all payments to the EU. To stop all foreign aid, at least until we can afford to give money away, and to rebuild our infrastructure and crucially, armed forces.
To redefine the roll of our police from an army of occupation, back to our traditional English bobby. We do this by going back to a traditional uniform and loosing the cs sprays and tazars which are turning our police into armed thugs who would rather beat the common man to a pulp than arrest the real criminals in parliament and in banking. It will be a priority for our police to round up all illegal immigrants and foreign criminals who will have British nationality removed from them prior to their being deported. This will include anyone who threatens our national security or the safety and security of our young people through the malicious rape of our children.
This is a Christian Kingdom and only Christianity will be taught in our schools as religious education. Other faiths can be taught but as a geography lesson whilst learning about foreign countries. The teachings of Islam particularly in their treatment of women is alien to our entire belief structure and will not be allowed. To this end all equality and human rights laws will be declared void as English law already gives more than enough protection for the individual. Mosques (which are breeding grounds for terrorist activity in a number of cases) will be banned as a serious threat to our internal security.
The Queen’s law and only the Queen’s law will be permitted in this Kingdom. Sharia law is alien to our religion and culture. It is in any case, an act of treason to permit any other system of law than English Law in this country. Sharia Law will be outlawed and any use of it by a British National will be a treason against the English Common and Constitutional Law and will be prosecuted according to our English law.