What is the REAL Reason for such permanent
Constitutional changes?
The “Succession
to the Crown Bill”, has already been put to Members of the Commonwealth for which Her Majesty is
Head of. It is now being debated in both Houses of Parliament.
I therefore
suggest, that as this Government proposes changes to the people’s foundational
Bill of Rights 1689, that the people of this United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Northern Ireland must be informed, and especially because of the
many proposed changes to the people’s long standing Common law
Constitution. The Bill of Rights in
particular is indeed the people’s Bill of Rights and there are two codiciles
at the end of the Bill that make very clear indeed that no
alterations to that Bill may be permitted, for the Bill is for all time.
Clearly the Bill of Rights 1689 may not be alterred at all.
The title of the
Bill is ‘Succession to the Crown Bill’ yet there is absolutely no need for
any changes to our Constitution at this moment in time for there are two other
people in line to the Throne and the next in line has not even been born yet,
and of course it might even be a boy anyway.
How many times have the people been told that we have no
Constitution? Now that we are told we
have, it becomes clear that acceptance of all or any EC/EEC/EU Treaty is
absolutely contrary to our long standing Common law Constitution. Never once for 600 years has there been
proposed such vast changes to our Constitution as there is now.
These changes include The Bill of Rights 1689, the Act of Settlement, the Union with
Scotland Act 1706, the Coronation Oath Act 1688, the Princess Sophia’s
Precedence Act 1711, the Royal Marriages Act 1772, the Union with Ireland Act
1800, the Accession Declaration Act 1910 and the Regency Act 1937. All this allegedly because of the Act of Succession and alleged
discrimination re those that have accepted with grace the ancient Common Law
Constitution. I add to this that the people of this Country have born the
burden of two World Wars to protect our constitution and way of life. The last war in living memory.
It is also
noted that these changes are, or would be in keeping with the EU’s “Equality
Act”. Is that then
the real Reason for these changes? Her Majesty has put her Prerogative in the
hands of the Government and on further rereading of Her Majesty’s Coronation
Oath it seems very doubtful indeed that these proposed changes are in
keeping with Her Majesty’s Coronation Oath. Even all of those in that wonderful building
cannot possibly lawfully change the proposed nine parts of our Constitution
that so many gave their lives for in the protecting of our way of life through
our Constitution. Our sworn Allegiance
to the Crown forbids these proposed changes plus also remembering those that went
through the last war, now recognise the great betrayal of all those that gave
their lives for our freedom.
What is proposed
in this Bill is asking Her Majesty that she should
forgo Her Coronation Oath and/or by altering and perhaps having to agree to something
that was put into the laws of this land for ever and “forever” means it is
incapable of being changed. The same
applies to much of our long standing Constitution. We have indeed had two Queen Elizabeth’s,
and one Queen Mary, the
proposals seem to me our Constitution has been ignored because of the EU
Treaties ratified in the past, but here, the deliberate changes to our very own
long standing Common Law Constitution is a great massive step too far and
betrays all those that gave their lives in war so that we here in the United
Kingdom could be free forever from Foreign Rule.
There is no
doubt what-so-ever, that these changes are indeed in keeping with the EU’s
Equality Act, yet many like me suffered in the last war-being bombed out twice
and my husband having fought in that war
along side many of his friends that never came back. It is time to get out of the EU, and I gently
remind all, that the Treason laws are there for all time to protect our
Constitution and although two Treason Laws were allegedly ‘repealed in full’
instead of just the “death by hanging” clause in the Government’s “Crime and
Disorder Act”, and recorded as so
repealed, they are indeed ‘live’ because they are there for all time to
protect our Constitution and cannot therefore be repealed.
Reading through
the Queen’s Coronation Oaths that Her Majesty solemnly made that great day, I
can understand why Her Majesty cannot possible agree to any of these proposed
changes to the ‘Succession to the Crown Bill’.
As all elected Members of Parliament also have to make their sworn
solemn Oaths of Allegiance to the British Crown on top of the solemn Oath of
Allegiance as British born citizens, required before they may put themselves
forward as Members of the British Parliament, neither can they or any British
subject of the Queen agree to any alterations of their long standing Common Law
Constitution. I am particularly aware the Government
alone cannot change the Oath of Allegiance, for that would be contrary to
the Oaths of Allegiance they make themselves. Even as MP’s step
forward in the House of Commons to place their hand on the Bible and swear the
Oath, that Oath ends with the words , "ACCORDING TO LAW". This
is the Executive ECHOING the Queen's own Coronation Oath. There are TWO
OATHS operative here, to protect the nation and the people. The
Queen's Oath, and the Oath of her Executive to her. They are interlocking oaths
to respect the RULE OF LAW at all times.
Also made clear
is that the use of the Prerogative Power may not be subversive of the rights
and liberties of the subject. (See case of Nichols v Nicholes, “Prerogative is
created for the benefit of the people and cannot be exercised to their
prejudice”) The
Bill of Rights 1689 is a declaration of Common law. It is also an operative
statute and it contains the Oath of Allegiance, which is required by Magna
Carta to be taken by all Crown servants including members of the Armed Forces,
MP's and the Judiciary. They are required also to "take into consequence
anything to the detriment of the subjects liberties”. The Monarch is constitutionally bound to
respect the Common Laws, which are recognised in Magna Carta and declared in
the Bill of Rights and so bound by Her Majesty's Coronation Oath. The Royal
Prerogatives of the Crown and Parliament were set by common law and cannot be
lawfully infringed by them. Each British
Subject from the moment they are born here in the UK is bound by an Oath of
Allegiance to the Crown just as if that person has declared so out loud.
However, I will take this a little further, for many changes are indeed being made by this Coalition Government, so much so, that one feels that the death of our complete Constitution in this Country cannot come quick enough for any one of them. Just suppose that if a European Union still exists by the time William and Kate’s baby is ready for marriage, what if He/She chooses “same sex Marriage” (See the EU’s Equality Act) End of future Monarchy? Or should provisions be made now to protect the line? As I understand it however, “Only a natural-born child of a husband and wife can succeed to the Throne". Yet how can that be if we allow Same-Sex marriage apply to our Monarchy?
Should it be laid down in Law while the
Succession to the Crown Bill is going through Parliament? Perhaps it should be
the second son or daughter that should become the next Monarch? Sadly, it seems
that our present leaders can only see the “TODAY” in what the proposed changes
to the Succession to the Crown Bill may bring-they are not looking into the
future of this Country-unless I am missing
some-thing and there is no “future” for this Country and we will indeed just be
REGIONS of the European Union-forever in the one Federal State of European
Union? The thought comes to me, would anyone
in the EU, TRUST any Government and/or any Parliament that have paid billions
to “give” the Governing of their own Country’s away to foreigners-that may well
be FOREVER-and doing so deceitfully?
Fooling the people that elected them and trusted them?
I am aware the Government alone cannot
change the Oath of Allegiance, for that would be contrary to the Oaths of
Allegiance they make themselves. In fact all MP’s and Members
of Government so swear allegiance to the British Crown before they may take up
their seats in parliament even though the people have freely elected them.
Perhaps we should remember too that our
entry into what we were told was, “A Common Market” was based on a
deliberate lie by one Edward Heath who assured the people that in joining this
Common Market, “There would be no loss of essential Sovereignty”. That lie was admitted on Television many
years later. Could we hold a
referendum on whether to remain in the EU, as promised by Mr Cameron IF he wins
the 2015 General Election? He knows from
the Oath he made when he became Prime Minister that, our Constitution is not
negotiable. Does he really think the people could choose to be
governed by foreigners forever, knowing that so many died for our freedom? Overthrowing
our Constitution by choosing to remain in the EU would indeed be treason.
Even conspiring to or contemplating overthrowing our Constitution is treason as
is encouraging others to overthrow our Constitution-even through a referendum,
would indeed be treason.
Therefore no part of what is proposed in
the "Succession to the Crown Bill" can go against anything Her
Majesty so solemnly swore on Oath by Her Majesty on that very special
Coronation Day. Other words
changed/altered now do not allow any alteration to what Her Majesty so swore on
that day which ended with-“according to their respective laws and customs” and
“Will you maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of
England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and Government thereof, as by
law established in England? It is
the duty of every Subject to uphold the strong and firm solemn Oath of
Allegiance to the British Crown which embraces our very long standing Common
law Constitution. Our Queen answered, “All
this I promise to do”. Perhaps we
should all make clear that we too will also answer, “All this we also
promise to do”.
A P. 18.3.2013.
Posts
