twizzel

We in England have a very good constitution the prblem is that the house of commons seem to feel that they are the pre-eminant part of parliament when in fact there is in law no pre-eminant part.

Parliament comprises the house of commons the house of Lords and the soveriegn, unfortunately in 1911 the commons threatened the lords with 300 new peers who would vote for the abolision of the Lords if the Lords did not approve a bill the commons wanted to pass, the Lords instead of asking the King to refuse the patent to the newly proposed Lords they rolled over and started the rote in our constituional system of government.

King George the 5th was told by a government minister that the King had a considerable number of prerogatives which he could use but he could only use them if he was backed by a government minister, instead of consigning the minister to the Tower he accepted wrongly that his prerogatives needed the support of a minister.

His sons and granddaughter will doubtless have been told the same lie.

The 1911 parliament act is strictly illegal as the Lords were under duress by threat of their extinction by the commons and every thing which follows on from it is illegal.

The restrictions on the soveriegns prerogatives is illegal because they amount to a major change to the constitution which requires the approval of the vast majority of the adults indigenous to this England.

Why do I say England and not Britain it is because Wales is subvject to English law and the English constitution,Scotland was allowed by English Kings to keep their own laws and constitution.

Her Majesty's powers and the powersa of the Lords have in effect been usurped by the commons entirely contrary to the ancient laws of England and the wishes of thew people.

We have in England a history of removing Kings who we feel are not up to the job and appointing those we feel are capable of handling the job. Let us think on that way forward.

twizzel

We in England have a very good constitution the prblem is that the house of commons seem to feel that they are the pre-eminant part of parliament when in fact there is in law no pre-eminant part.

Parliament comprises the house of commons the house of Lords and the soveriegn, unfortunately in 1911 the commons threatened the lords with 300 new peers who would vote for the abolision of the Lords if the Lords did not approve a bill the commons wanted to pass, the Lords instead of asking the King to refuse the patent to the newly proposed Lords they rolled over and started the rot in our constituional system of government.

King George the 5th was told by a government minister that the King had a considerable number of prerogatives which he could use but he could only use them if he was backed by a government minister, instead of consigning the minister to the Tower he accepted wrongly that his prerogatives needed the support of a minister.

His sons and granddaughter will doubtless have been told the same lie.

The 1911 parliament act is strictly illegal as the Lords were under duress by threat of their extinction by the commons and every thing which follows on from it is illegal.

The restrictions on the soveriegns prerogatives is illegal because they amount to a major change to the constitution which requires the approval of the vast majority of the adults indigenous to this England.

Why do I say England and not Britain it is because Wales is subvject to English law and the English constitution,Scotland was allowed by English Kings to keep their own laws and constitution.

Her Majesty's powers and the powersa of the Lords have in effect been usurped by the commons entirely contrary to the ancient laws of England and the wishes of thew people.

We have in England a history of removing Kings who we feel are not up to the job and appointing those we feel are capable of handling the job. Let us think on that way forward.

Aardvark

twizzel, I thought you held a SCC warrant from HMTQ. I trust you are not threatening to break your oath of allegiance. I could never break mine.

__________________
When in Woking do as the Wokes do.

"I do not wish to form my opinions by thoughtlessly quoting others; I wish others to support their opinions by sensibly quoting me." Paul Wesson (Aardvark) 13th April 2008

g hall

In spite of you posting 3 times I'm only going to answer once

There are an unwritten constitution, legal documentation (Bill of rights, Magna Carta etc.,) and legal precedent the problem is that it keeps getting amended by whichever "buggins" is in power to favour them and their supporters.
The Monarchy are nothing more then a sideshow for tittale tattle by the tabloid muckrakers and "brown nosers" who wish to have a gong or two

We desperately need a written constitution which sets out the role of the state, the judicary etc., it also should contain the responsibilities that everyone has

alternatively you can continue living in the Dark Ages were who your parents were counts for more then your abilities

__________________
"That government is best which governs least."
"This is a sharp Medicine, but it is a Physician for all diseases and miseries".
"To be "matter of fact" about the world is to blunder into fantasy --and dull fantasy at that, as the real world is strange and wonderful."
TANSTAAFL TANJ

6079SmithW

By her coronation oath, the Queen governs us 'according to our laws and customs' by the advice of her ministers, from the prime minister down. Our laws - the people’s laws - include more than just acts of parliament: they go back to the Common Laws of England which pre-date parliament (1265) and include the laws of Alfred the Great (for which he justly earned his title for our right to trial by jury alone), Henry I's Charter of Liberties, Magna Carta (1215), and the Declaration of Rights of February 1688/9 (the year changed at Easter in those days - it was 1689 by our reckoning).

For a brief and illuminating history – in which I learned more in one hour than in 7 years of grammar schooling – listen to John Bingley’s talk on our constitution at Divine Right of Kings - never. Divine Right of Politicians - NEVER. The U.K. Constitution by John Bingley - with questions. | Britannia Radio. It starts 11 minutes in if you wish to skip the intro.

g_hall 9/7/08 "We need a new constitution without any hereditary OR religious influence indeed the original American Constitution would make a valid starting point"

We already have the best written constitution there is - the US constitution is based on it. The hereditary & religious influences are the very things which have given us such stability over the years. If you elect a head of state you end up with the likes of Blair, Brown, Bush, Clinton or the latest winner on big brother. For the money we get the best value of virtually all nations on Earth, not least because we get a whole extended family. If you loathe them, the alternatives are far, far worse. The idea that you can change the head of state if they are elected is false, since all you will have to chose from is a list of similar people, none of them nice. At least the accident of birth grants a chance of a nice monarch.

The Queen has let us down, but we do not know why. The official line is that she acts on the advice of her ministers and if they give her rubbish advice she still has to act on it. She doesn't have to follow the advice slavishly, but we are not privy to the whole story which might explain why she chooses to grant her assent to these treasonous bills. She is not as powerless as some believe: she can dissolve parliament and force a general election and she can refuse to grant royal assent. Perhaps she realised that if she acted too soon, she would have been forcibly stripped of her powers by the venal governments we have enjoyed for the last five decades. Perhaps she is biding her time until we the people let her know how she should act.

One could take the approach that neither government nor Queen can gift our sovereignty away, therefore it has not been gifted and the treaty of Lisbon is just so much waste paper, useful for lighting fires or recycling into toilet paper. This is the de juris position. De facto, if we let them they can: if we all say 'it is inevitable' then it will be.

Arguably our biggest single problem is our government too big – the law of diminishing marginal returns is well into negative territory for government. We have watched successive governments systematically destroying our constitution, institutions and our heritage with barely a whimper. We let them bleed us dry. The EU will be even bigger and even more remote, unaccountable and almost certainly hostile to the people of this country and will have the power to destroy us and England utterly. If we stand against them we shall be ‘insurgents’ and treated accordingly.

Unquestionably we are now in full-blown a constitutional crisis with our Queen and government purporting to gift our sovereignty to a foreign power: so what are we actually going to DO about it?

ENGLISH UNIONIST

To quote from my booklet "The State Of The Union and Other Articles":-

On the subject of the monarchy, hardly a day passes without there being some call from one quarter or another for the 1689 Bill of Rights and 1701 Act of Settlement to be amended or repealed to allow the monarch to be, or marry, a Roman Catholic. In December 1999, for example, Former Secretary of State for Scotland and a Past Chairman of the Scottish Conservative Party, Lord (Michael) Forsyth of Drumlean, unsuccessfully tabled a motion in the House of Lords ‘that an humble petition be presented to Her Majesty praying that Her Majesty may be graciously pleased to allow that Her undoubted prerogative and interest may not stand in the way of the consideration by Parliament during the present session of any measure to remove the bar on a person who is not, or who is married to a person who is not, a Protestant to succeed to the Crown’.

Three years later, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, the Roman Catholic Primate of England & Wales called for an end to the constitutional bar on Members of the Royal Family marrying Roman Catholics and excluding themselves from the line of succession in the process, whilst three days prior to the Cardinal’s call Kevin MacNamara (then Labour MP for Hull North and a well-known apologist for republican causes, introduced a Ten Minute Rule Bill in the House of Commons to amend Section 3 of the Treason Felony Act 1848 in order to establish that it is no longer an offence to express an opinion either in favour of republicanism or advocating the abolition of the monarchy; to amend the Act of Settlement 1701 to provide that persons in communion with the Roman Catholic Church are able to succeed to the Crown; and to amend the Oaths Act 1978 relating to the parliamentary oath to avoid MPs having to swear an oath of allegiance to the monarch before taking their seats in the House of Commons. Whilst MacNamara’s Bill shamefully received a Second Reading by 170 votes to 32 it, thankfully, did not proceed any further and failed to become law; nevertheless, the high number of MPs who voted for its Second Reading should be cause for concern for anyone and everyone who supports the monarchy.

Both during the Queen’s Golden Jubilee in 2002 and the 400th Anniversary of the Union of Crowns in 2003, there were further calls for either the dissolution or, at least, the deprotestantisation of the monarchy. In 2005 both Former Northern Ireland Office Minister and Labour Peer Lord (Alf) Dubs and Ann Taylor (Labour MP for Dewsbury) unsuccessfully introduced Bills in the House of Lords and House of Commons respectively to amend the Act of Settlement and make provision about succession to the throne and royal marriages, whilst shortly before the marriage of HRH The Prince of Wales and Camilla Parker-Bowles, Cardinal Keith O’Brien Primate of the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland made a scathing attack on the Act of Settlement describing its ban on the monarch, and the heir to the throne from being (or marrying) a Roman Catholic as “hurtful” and “discriminatory”.

The Cardinal said “It is a matter of regret, surely, that had Mrs Parker-Bowles been a Catholic, Prince Charles would have lost the right to succession to the throne … and that’s hurtful. Here in Scotland, one in five of the population are equally loyal Catholics. So why should Prince Charles, or any heir to our throne, not be able to marry not just someone of the Anglican Faith, but someone who is a Muslim or a Roman Catholic”?

The answer to the Cardinal’s question – which must be echoed throughout the land to counter his claim – is that as the monarch is also Supreme-Governor of the Church of England and Defender of The (Protestant Reformed) Faith, it would be irresponsible and unconstitutional for the heir to the throne to be – when he/she succeeded to the throne – theoretically Supreme-Governor of one church whilst belonging to another (or any other faith for that matter) and Defender of one faith whilst embracing the doctrines of another religion which is diametrically opposed to the teachings of the Reformed Faith he/she professes to defend. Whilst the ecumenical movement has done much to mask the division between the teachings of the Protestant and Roman Catholic Churches, there remain fundamental differences between them, not least who is Head of the Church (Christ or the Pope) and the way of personal salvation, which makes it imperative that there be no change to the Act of Settlement, lest the United Kingdom cease to be an independent and, albeit nominally, “Protestant” state and become merely a satellite of the Holy See.

Indeed, in his excellent paper entitled “The Sovereign Community of the Realm”, published as a special report for the Queen’s Golden Jubilee, Alistair McConnachie (Editor of SOVEREIGNTY) correctly observed that “the Act of Settlement of 1701 decrees that the monarch cannot be a Roman Catholic, and neither the monarch nor the heir to the throne can marry a Roman Catholic. This may seem anachronistic, in our multi-religious society today, but there is – whatever one may think of it – a reason.

“At the Queen’s coronation oath she is asked, ‘Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland … and of your Possessions and the other Territories to any of them belonging or pertaining, according to their respective laws and customs? … Will you to your power cause Law and Justice, in Mercy, to be executed in all your judgements? … Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law’? The Protestant doctrine is that the national monarch is supreme governor, next under God, of all estates in his or her realm.

“At the Pope’s coronation it is said to him, ‘Receive the tiara adorned with three crowns, and know that thou art Father of Kings and Princes, Ruler of the World, and Vicar on Earth of Jesus Christ’. The Roman Catholic doctrine is that the Pope has international authority over all national monarchs. Thus, the Protestant and Roman Catholic conceptions of monarchy are quite different. A practising [Roman] Catholic monarch would submit to the Pope as the highest temporal and spiritual authority in the land, and this would have religious, constitutional, political and social implications for the country – although the extent to which these would impact upon an increasingly secular society, is indeed arguable” .

More recently, SNP Leader and newly-elected First Minister of Scotland (Alex Salmond MSP, MP) has added his cry to the growing number of republicans and socialists calling for the repeal of the Act of Settlement whilst replacing the Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom with the Scottish Saltire on the Scottish Government’s official documents, which is nothing short of seeking to subvert the monarch’s role as our Head of State, Supreme-Governor of the Church of England and Defender of The (Protestant Reformed) Faith.

In each case, Mr Salmond struck a raw nerve with the silent majority of Scots who, whilst being nationalistic, are not necessarily Scottish Nationalists. There is a difference: nationalistic Scots love Scotland but value Scotland’s constitutional position as an integral part of the United Kingdom; Scottish Nationalists, on the other hand, claim to be patriotic but are committed to Scotland’s “independence” from England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Suffice to say, insofar as the Act of Settlement is concerned, the announcement that the Princess Royal’s son, Peter Phillips, is to marry his girlfriend Autumn Kelly (a Canadian Roman Catholic) has invoked calls from the usual suspects for the Act of Settlement to be repealed, on account that Mr Phillips’s impending marriage to Miss Kelly will bar him from the line of succession where he is currently tenth in line to the throne, just as surely as our membership of the European Union relegates the status of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II from being our Head of State to being a European Citizen en-par with the rest of us.

Alas, the significance of the Protestant succession to the British Throne and on the integrity of the British Commonwealth is perhaps better appreciated and understood outside the United Kingdom than within it, as demonstrated in the words of Philip Benwell MBE (National Chairman of the Australian Monarchist League) who, in his earlier letter to Members of the House of Lords imploring them to reject Lord Dubbs’ Bill, said “The Australian Monarchist League, a totally voluntary organisation, has fought long and hard to maintain our Constitutional Monarchy under which we believe our freedom and democracy is best protected. A belief which was overwhelmingly endorsed by the People of Australia in the 1999 Referendum. I am therefore taking this opportunity to write to you with regard to the 'Succession to the Crown Bill (HL)', the Second Reading of which is scheduled for the 14th January 2005, as this Bill has direct consequences for the Monarchy in Australia and that of our fellow Commonwealth Realms.

“The Bill proposes to amend the Act of Settlement and the Bill of Rights for the purpose of reforming the Succession to The Crown and removing the prohibition on marriage to a Roman Catholic. The Bill also seeks to repeal the Royal Marriage Act of 1772.

“Whilst the remainder of the original Dominions - (now termed Commonwealth Realms) - of Australia, Canada and New Zealand are today sovereign democracies each with their own unique constitutions, precedents and conventions developed to suit our individual environments and peoples, our constitutions nevertheless continue to be inextricably linked to the Crown of the United Kingdom. Under the Australian Constitution this is quite clearly expressed in Clause 2 of The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act of 1900, which states: ‘The provisions of this Act referring to the Queen shall extend to Her Majesty's heirs and successors in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom’.

“It was because of this state of affairs, which continues to this day, that the Statute of Westminster of 1931 was enacted to protect the special relationship that each Dominion has directly with The Crown from actions of the British Government and the British Parliament without the approval of the Realms as is explained by the wording of the Statute: ‘And whereas it is meet and proper to set out by way of preamble to this Act that, inasmuch as the Crown is the symbol of the free association of the members of the British Commonwealth of Nations, and as they are united by a common allegiance to the Crown, it would be in accord with the established constitutional position of all the members of the Commonwealth in relation to one another that any alteration in the law touching the Succession to the Throne or the Royal Style and Titles shall hereafter require the assent as well of the Parliaments of all the Dominions as of the Parliament of the United Kingdom’.

“Whilst paragraph 6(2) of the proposed Succession to the Crown Bill (HL states: ‘This Act extends to the United Kingdom only’ I respectfully submit that anything to do with the Succession will, regardless of this clause, affect the other fifteen Commonwealth Realms and that the proposed Bill as it stands is contrary to the terms of the Statute of Westminster and should not, as such, be entertained by the House” .

Mr Benwell had previously drawn attention to the significance of the Act of Settlement when, in his paper entitled The Act of Settlement of 1701 and its relevance to the Commonwealth Realms in 2001, he said “The Act of Settlement 'settled' the succession to the Throne of England, Scotland and Ireland on Princess Sophia, Electress of Hanover, granddaughter of James I, 'and on the heirs of her body, being Protestants'. Since Sophia had died before Queen Anne the succession eventually passed to Sophie's son, George, Elector of Hanover, who in 1714 became King George I.

“The Act also laid down the conditions under which alone the Crown could he held:-

• No Roman Catholic, nor anyone married to a Roman Catholic, could succeed to the Throne.
• Furthermore the Sovereign had to swear to maintain the 'Church of England; and, following the Treaty of Union of 1707, this was extended to the Church of Scotland. The Sovereign had not only to be in communion with the Church of England but had to promise, in the Coronation Oath, to maintain the Protestant religion.
• The Act further provided that parliamentary consent was to be required for the Sovereign to engage in war. Judges were thereafter to hold office on good conduct and not at royal pleasure.

“The Act of Settlement thus reinforced the fundamental principle established in 1688-89, that Parliament had the right to determine the conditions under which the Crown could be held and was a further stage in the development of constitutional monarchy where the Sovereign would thereafter reign but not rule” .

Mr Benwell continued “The one hundred and fifty years before the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement was a period of civil strife and internal warfare unparalleled in the history of England since the Norman conquest.

“… Time was to prove that both the Act of Settlement of 1701 and the Bill of Rights of 1689 were able to resolve the intense concerns existing at that time for the future of the Constitutional Monarchy and the supremacy of Parliament over the King.

“Rule in Britain had always been different from European nations particularly from the Saxon belief of the supremacy of Parliament as opposed to the later Norman/French belief in the Divine Right of the King to rule absolutely. This was explained in the comments of Richard II, who in 1392, declared "... the Crown of England hath been so free at all times, that it hath been in no earthly subjection, but immediately subject to God touching the regality of the said Crown, and no other"

“ …The Bill of Rights, whose full title is "An Act for declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and settling the Succession of The Crown" linked the succession to the popular rights of the people limiting the power of the sovereign and making the Monarch subject to law and to Parliament", thus ending forever the concept of rule of the King by divine right” .

Accordingly, it is imperative that constitutional monarchists and unionists (in all parties and none) act now to champion the Protestant succession, and oppose any and every attempt to further either to repeal the Act of Settlement or diminish/extirpate the Protestant basis of the Coronation Oath.

__________________
THE UNION OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND, UNLIKE THE EUROPEAN UNION, DESERVES (AND NEEDS) TO BE MAINTAINED AND STRENGTHENED DAILY.

gimlet

English Unionist

Where can I get a copy of your booklet "The State Of The Union and Other Articles"?

Regards

Gimlet

noachian

Very interesting Twizzel. Thanks for posting that.

I totally agree. I often think the Prince of Wales; despite his Pro-European attitudes, is a strong character. I am not sure whether he will be a blessing or a curse towards the Monarchy.

__________________
"A Monarchy which above all, values the Liberty of the subject." Marcus Aurelius on perfect society.

"Control thy passions, lest they take vengeance on thee." - Epictetus.

Smidgey

I suppose Margaret Thatcher, Tony Blair, Henry VIII, yourself (you don't agree with Labour do you?) or anyone else who has ever disagreed should have left/leave the country too?

What a rediculous statement.

You have no right to educate somebody, that is correct. You can only educate them if they freely choose to be educated. You need to improve your understanding of rights. I suggest a reading of that great English philosopher, John Locke, as starters.

So I am a liar? Not only that, I find it quite insulting that you don't think people can be moral without the law - but it says a lot for your own personal morality. If you believe this, then you are only moral through fear and force, not because it is right.

Then why are you supporting the British system? That has done nothing to preserve our liberty. You are in a world of contradiction.

Then your Marcus Aurelius quote in your above statement is null and void.

That was not the analogy I was making - do pay attention. I never made an analogy to their character. Please re-read what I wrote and come back on that.

I do think that - read what I wrote.

It was a reference to a generic law or code.

As I have already shown - this is nonsense. It depends upon which cause. Should Al Gore recieve respect from everyone, even if they disagree with him? Should Tony Blair recieve respect for his devotion to the Iraq war? Should Henry the eight recieve respect for his devotion to each of his wives (ha!)?

I'm sure Hitler was devoted to killing Jews - but he most certainly does not deserve my respect (p.s. notice the context of the analogy, i've spelt it out a third time in case you didn't understand the first two).

I don't understand what you are trying to say here - could you please re-word this paragraph?

Firstly, I am disrespectful of her office and what she does with it, not her (although I am of Prince Charles and his pro-EU speeches).

Secondly, I don't see what the rest of this paragraph has to do with anything - much of that was never in dispute.

No you don't, you basically called me immoral and a liar at the top of your post...

Never in dispute.

You have no right to educate me - what tosh. You have a fatal misunderstanding of the concept of rights.

__________________
How vain is man, who boasts in fight the valour of gigantic might!

-Georg Friedrich Händel

nowayjose

Can't believe any loyal subject would question the Crown