Memorandum by Mr A D
This
is from 2005 and I have no idea of his e-mail now.
International Treaties and
the Royal Prerogative Ministers of the Crown have, from time to time entered into treaties on behalf of the UK. It should be noted that the Ministers concerned must seek authority from the Crown by the Royal Prerogative before signing. Because the Monarch is constitutionally bound to respect the provisions of the common law, which were recognised in Magna Carta and declared in the Bill of Rights, such Royal Prerogative has the following restrictions. (The term "prerogative" means a right or privilege exclusive to an individual or class).
(a) Prerogative
cannot be used in an innovatory way. If this were not so, the executive could
dispense with Parliament and Judiciary and become an unlimited tyranny. Any
future Attorney General could claim that an edict was part of a treaty and it
would become unquestionable.
(b) The use of
Prerogative power may not be subversive of the rights and liberties of the
subject. (The case of Nichols v. Nichols stated "Prerogative is created
for the benefit of the people and cannot be exercised to their
prejudice".)
Royal Prerogative
may not be used to suspend or offend against Statutes in Force. This comes from
the Bill of Rights and the Coronation Oath Act which specifies the following
form of words; "Archbishop: Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern
the peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland . . .
according to their respective laws and usages." Prospective Monarch:
"I solemnly promise so to do." Note the similarity to the Judicial
Oath. This is because the Courts dispense justice on behalf of the Crown. The Limitations of Royal Prerogative are clear:
"No prerogative may be recognised that is contrary to Magna Carta or any other statute, or that interferes with the liberties of the subject. The courts have jurisdiction therefore, to enquire into the existence of any prerogative, it being a maxim of the common law that the King ought to be under no man, but under God and the law, because the law makes the King. If any prerogative is disputed, the Courts must decide the question of whether or not it exists in the same way as they decide any other question of law. If a prerogative is clearly established, they must take the same judicial notice of it as they take of any other rule of law."
Bowles v Bank of England (1913) confirmed that, "the Bill of Rights still remains unrepealed, and practice of custom, however prolonged, or however acquiesced in on the part of the subject can not be relied on by the Crown as justifying any infringement of its provisions".
The Bill of Rights 1688 is a declaration of the common law. It is also an operative Statute. 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 not to "take into consequence or example anything to the detriment of the subjects liberties".
The Oath required of Crown servants includes "I will be faithful and bear true Allegiance . . . "The qualification "true" confirms that allegiance is not required to a Monarch whose actions are unlawful.
It can be shown that we have recently had a coup-d'etat in this country. This was accomplished when the Government took control over the armed forces to use them for political purposes.
The Bill of Rights allows the Crown a standing army in peace time and who's members swear allegiance to defend Her "in person Crown and dignity against all enemies". No one else (except the Duke of Argyll), is allowed an army.
The Armed Forces Act 1996 purports to allow the Crown to set aside the requirement for annual army acts. It states that the Crown may authorise the armed forces by "Order in Council". This provision would permit the Government to use the Armed Forces even if Parliament was suspended, and is contrary to the intent of the Bill of Rights.
Various defence reviews have resulted in the Government issuing mission statements that claims that the forces role in future is to defend the Realm and "to implement Government policy, in particular foreign policy". This is from documents published by the MOD and available from them and on the Web. It means that the Government is now claiming that it can use the Army for its own purposes where the safety of the Realm is not threatened. Serving members of the Forces have been invited to sign new contracts agreeing to this new arrangement. Recent recruiting adverts for the Forces reflect this. A recent cinema advert for the RAF depicts a foreign "peace keeping" operation and has the slogan "Their country needs you".
This is a equivalent to a coup.
13 August 2005
My addition to this, 20.6. 2013.
Two codicils at the end of the
Bill of Rights. II. And be it further declared and enacted by
the authority aforesaid, that from and after this present session of Parliament
no dispensation by _non obstante_ of or to any statute or any part thereof
shall be allowed, but that the same shall be held void and of no effect,
except a dispensation be allowed of in such statute, and except in such cases
as shall be specially provided for by one or more bill or bills to be passed
during this present session of Parliament.
III. Provided that no charter or grant or pardon
granted before the three and twentieth day of October in the year of our Lord
one thousand six hundred eighty-nine shall be any ways impeached or invalidated
by this Act, but that the same shall be and remain of the same force and effect
in law and no other than as if this Act had never been made.
=============================
To.The Rt Hon David Cameron MP
10 Downing Street
London SW1A 2AA
United Kingdom
10 Downing Street
London SW1A 2AA
United Kingdom
20. 2.2013.
Dear Prime Minister,
RE: The Succession to
the Crown Bill.
This Bill has
already been put to every Realm in the Commonwealth for which Her Majesty is
Head of State, with the matter having been debated in the House of Commons
which for now lodges temporary with Members of Parliament. I understand it is
presently in the House of Lords.
I therefore wish
to suggest, that as it allegedly proposes changes to Parliament’s foundational
Declaration and Bill of Rights, that the People of this United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland must be consulted as to any changes to this great
Statute – for indeed it is their Bill of Rights 1689. The Bill of
Rights, as I am sure you are aware, cannot be changed otherwise. Yet this
proposed Bill, as I understand it, changes Nine (9) parts of our long standing
Common Law Constitution. 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. The two codiciles at the end of the Bill of
Rights make very clear indeed that no alterations to the Bill may be permitted.
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.
I quote from the Lords; “In many ways, this Bill is akin to an international treaty and it is incumbent on us to give this legislation detailed consideration of what I hope is a Bill with a clear purpose. This is not just to assure ourselves that the law is sound, but also to consider that these changes will be brought into effect in lands beyond our borders, lands that are tied together by a common history and monarch through the Commonwealth.”
As the proposed new legislation to change the alterations to this Bill have been sent all around around the world without the people of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland being informed and before it was even put to Members of the Commonwealth, I submit that the people should indeed have their say. Whether they would agree to all the proposed changes to all nine parts of their Constitution is another matter all together, but it really is up to them -- for the People of this Country must be allowed to express their view in this great matter of State.
I quote from the Lords; “In many ways, this Bill is akin to an international treaty and it is incumbent on us to give this legislation detailed consideration of what I hope is a Bill with a clear purpose. This is not just to assure ourselves that the law is sound, but also to consider that these changes will be brought into effect in lands beyond our borders, lands that are tied together by a common history and monarch through the Commonwealth.”
As the proposed new legislation to change the alterations to this Bill have been sent all around around the world without the people of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland being informed and before it was even put to Members of the Commonwealth, I submit that the people should indeed have their say. Whether they would agree to all the proposed changes to all nine parts of their Constitution is another matter all together, but it really is up to them -- for the People of this Country must be allowed to express their view in this great matter of State.
From the Bill of
Rights. II. And be it
further declared and enacted by the authority aforesaid, that from and after
this present session of Parliament no dispensation by _non obstante_ of or to
any statute or any part thereof shall be allowed, but that the same shall be
held void and of no effect, except a dispensation be allowed of in such
statute, and except in such cases as shall be specially provided for by one or
more bill or bills to be passed during this present session of Parliament.
III. Provided that no charter or grant or pardon
granted before the three and twentieth day of October in the year of our Lord
one thousand six hundred eighty-nine shall be any ways impeached or invalidated
by this Act, but that the same shall be and remain of the same force and effect
in law and no other than as if this Act had never been made. End of quotes
I beg you, Mr
Cameron, not to alter any part of our long standing Common Law Constitution
that so many gave their lives for in World War II. THEY died in order to keep their own Common Law Constitution
rather than be ruled by foreigners at that time. We could not control whoever became leaders in other Countries
then, and we cannot control who becomes leaders in other Country’s now. Our own
Constitution is protected of course by the Treason Acts which are there
constantly to protect our old and rather strange Common Law Constitution, our Constitution
that has remained ever thus because twice the people have fought and died to
keep it. I know what that last war was
like Mr Cameron because I was in it. The old people on the Continent of Europe
could perhaps tell you what it was like living under a Dictator they
couldn’t get rid of.
There is absolutely
no need to change any part of our Constitution at present. The Duchess may well have a boy anyway, and
our Queen is a perfect example that there is absolutely no problem to change
any part of our Constitution at all. I
beg you, please think again, for I do not want to see the people have to fight
for their freedom ever again. Once was
enough, and this is why our Constitution as it stands at present must remain
so.
Yours most sincerely, A P Address removed
As I had no reply, I wrote another letter. Please note the dates of my LETTERS-all
before it became an ACT.
To
The Prime Minister the Rt Hon Mr Cameron
10 Downing Street,
London
23 March 2013.
Dear Prime Minister,
Regarding the Succession
to the Crown Bill
There are many concerns regarding the proposal to put
through the above Bill. First and
foremost of course is the proposal to alter our long standing Common law
Constitution that has lasted for over 600 years. The people of this Country fought two World Wars to keep our way
of life and in particular our Common Law Constitution.
The proposed changes are absolutely contrary to Her
Majesty’s Oaths she made at Her Coronation.
Most people watched that Coronation all day long-as did I- on what was
then, a black and white Television. I
understand that what is proposed now is indeed contrary to the solemn Oaths Her
Majesty made on that long day, she cannot take part in what is proposed and
placed Her Prerogative with Her loyal and true Government Ministers. However, as Her Majesty’s Ministers also
make loyal Oaths before they may take
up their seats in the House of Commons, even though some of the people have
freely voted for them, they may not take their seats until their sworn Oath is
read out loud, Therefore I suggest none
of the proposed changes in the above Bill can be passed or acted upon for the
reason below.
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.
I question whether, as each and everyone of us here in the
United Kingdom, especially those that were born here, from the moment of birth
it is as though they had made that Oath, for from the moment in this Her
Majesty’s Realm, it is as if they have already said that Oath for they have the
protection of the Crown from that very moment. Though some of us make other solemn Oaths as Magistrates,
Police, MP’s etc each of us make them to the British Crown, yet none of us can
accept or change what her Majesty so swore on that very special day when she
became Queen. We cannot accept any of the proposed changes. Prince Charles also
made certain commitments when he became Prince of Wales.
To even put the proposals in the Succession to the Crown
Bill is completely wrong, and it is putting our Monarch and the next in line to
the Crown in impossible positions. Our
Monarch cannot agree to any of these changes because of the very Oaths she made
at Her Coronation. Although I am aware
that, “No Parliament may bind another” whilst that may be a matter of fact,
that applies to day to day matters, but the Oath is of course part of our long
standing Common Law Constitution and it is indeed long standing because of the
wars fought to keep it ever thus.
Parts of Our Constitution may not indeed be altered or
passed over. Too many died in the
protecting of them rather than allow foreigners to force their Constitutions
upon us. We cannot change our
Constitution like those on the Continent because they were able to create new
Constitutions after the last war.
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 and this country, just as if that person has declared so out loud.
Two
codicils at the end of the Bill of Rights. II. And be it further declared and enacted by
the authority aforesaid, that from and after this present session of Parliament
no dispensation by _non obstante_ of or to any statute or any part thereof
shall be allowed, but that the same shall be held void and of no effect,
except a dispensation be allowed of in such statute, and except in such cases
as shall be specially provided for by one or more bill or bills to be passed
during this present session of Parliament.
III. Provided that no charter or grant or pardon
granted before the three and twentieth day of October in the year of our Lord
one thousand six hundred eighty-nine shall be any ways impeached or invalidated
by this Act, but that the same shall be and remain of the same force and effect
in law and no other than as if this Act had never been made.
We know-without doubt, a female can become Queen, for we
have had two Queen Elizabeth's and one Queen Victoria. But I suggest that
perhaps the real reason why the changes to our Constitution are so desired is
to fit in with the EU's Equality Act. However, according to R v
Thistlewood 1820 , "To destroy the Constitution is
treason". The Treason Acts are for all time, to protect our
Constitution. To try to change nine parts of our long standing Common Law
Constitution at the whim of “today’s” foreigners, when others gave their lives
in two world wars to protect and to keep in tact is sheer treachery and a
betrayal of all those that gave THEIR lives for all of us.
I am aware that
the “Succession to the Crown Bill”, has already been put to every Member of the
Commonwealth for which Her Majesty is Head of State, but they do not have the
same long standing Common law Constitution we have, yet they have indeed come
to our aid in our hour of need in that terrible World War II. I doubt very much that some, if any,
continental European Country would do the same as those brave members of Her
Majesty’s Commonwealth.
Sadly, I have
noticed that most, if not all legislation this Government has put through since
it came into power started its journey from the European Union, from the EU’s
Localism Act to same Sex Marriage, yet I never thought for one minute this
Government would ever try to change our Constitution at the whim of an EU
dictact or for any other reason either.
The people of
this Country cannot accept such deliberate changes to our Constitution that has
lasted 600 years and have fought in two World Wars to keep. The Act of Supremacy 1559 included
the words: "…all usurped
and foreign power and authority…may forever be clearly extinguished, and
never used or obeyed in this realm. …no foreign prince, person, prelate, state,
or potentate…shall at any time after the last day of this session of
Parliament, use, enjoy or exercise any manner of power, jurisdiction,
superiority, authority, preeminence or privilege…within this realm, but that
henceforth the same shall be clearly abolished out of this realm, for
ever." Its central intentions live on through the use of
almost identical words 129 years later, when The Declaration of Rights of
1688 was written. This, too, is a settlement treaty, and not an Act of
Parliament. It too, therefore, cannot be repealed by Parliament.
Having placed the above, can we indeed even contribute
financially to a foreign power? Most
Countries in the EU are indeed in financial difficulties quite simply because
none have recognised the heavy cost to them in Governance and especially the
financial burden. Financing yet another
layer of Government here in the UK, through the EU Regions that have now been
set up is yet another reason why this Country is in so much debt.
I wait longingly for
the day when those we send to Parliament proudly and freely also uphold their
own very long standing Common law Constitution also, ready to fight to keep it
as those ordinary people fought so, guided and encourages by one magnificent
Prime Minister, one Winston Churchill.
With respect, Anne
Palmer. Address removed
To. The Rt Hon David Cameron MP
10 Downing Street
London SW1A 2AA
United Kingdom
10 Downing Street
London SW1A 2AA
United Kingdom
15.4.2013
Dear Prime Minister,
RE: The Succession to the Crown Bill.
I beg you once more not to continue with the “Succession to
the Crown Bill”. There is absolutely no need of any alteration especially and
more importantly because of European Legislation through the Equality Act,
an Act brought about by foreigners.
Those Commissioners in the EU bear absolutely no allegiance
to our Monarch, nor to our Country as we here in the United Kingdom of Great
Britain do. Anyone born here in the UK, it is as if they have so sworn their
solemn Oath of Allegiance to the British Crown from that moment.
Many people in two World Wars gave their lives fighting in
those wars for freedom for this Government to be able to govern itself and
according to its long standing Common Law Constitution, rather than having
foreign constitutional documents forced upon the free people here in the United
Kingdom. Many innocent people, children and babies also died in the bombing of
this Country for all that this Country and Nation stood for. I was in that
Hellish War too Mr Cameron, as was our present Queen, and sadly it can all
happen again if you continue to allow foreigners dictate laws even our freely
elected Prime Minister must put forward because of the treacherous EU Treaties
ratified by others that alters the pattern of even how our long standing
Monarchy is deliberately altered through the EU’s Equality Act.
I find it
difficult to believe that you would go ahead with these nine (9) proposed
changes to this Country’s 600 hundreds year old Constitutional foundation
Documents, especially the foundational Declaration and Bill of Rights 1688/9
the latter having two codiciles at the end of the Bill of Rights which makes very
clear indeed that no alterations to the Bill may be permitted.
I repeat, there
is absolutely no need for any changes to our Constitution at this moment in
time for there are at least two other people in line to the Throne and the next
in line has not even been born yet, plus it might be a boy anyway. The only
“rush” seems to be because of the EU’s Equality Act.
Noted the Nine
Changes Here: 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.
As the proposed changes required for the above Succession to the Crown Bill have been sent all around the world to the Members of the Commonwealth without the people of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland being informed, I submit that the people of the United Kingdom of Great Britain should also have their say. It is indeed necessary for the Bill of Rights anyway and unlawful otherwise. Whether the people would agree to all the proposed changes to all nine parts of their Constitution is another matter altogether, but it really is up to them -- for the People of this Country must be allowed to express their view in this great matter of State.
As the proposed changes required for the above Succession to the Crown Bill have been sent all around the world to the Members of the Commonwealth without the people of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland being informed, I submit that the people of the United Kingdom of Great Britain should also have their say. It is indeed necessary for the Bill of Rights anyway and unlawful otherwise. Whether the people would agree to all the proposed changes to all nine parts of their Constitution is another matter altogether, but it really is up to them -- for the People of this Country must be allowed to express their view in this great matter of State.
From the Bill of
Rights. II.
Repeated quotes removed for ease
We could not
control whoever became leaders in other Countries then, and we cannot
control who becomes leaders in other Country’s now. Yet
here, if this goes ahead, we are allowing foreigners dictate what even our
Monarchy must abide by. Nine alterations to our long standing Common Law
Constitution at the behest of foreigners. We went to war in 1939 to prevent
having to forcefully obey other people’s orders and Constitutions. Continental Country’s can now easily alter
their Constitutions for those Country’s were over-run, we however cannot Mr
Cameron, for the stretch of water between us and the Continent prevented such
an invasion. We gave our all to keep
our Constitution as it is at present.
Our own Constitution is protected of course by the Treason Acts
which are there constantly to protect our old and rather strange Common Law
Constitution, a Constitution that has remained ever thus because twice
the people have fought and died to keep it. I know what that last war was like Mr Cameron because I was in
it. The old people on the Continent of Europe could perhaps tell you what it
was like living under a Dictator they couldn’t get rid of at that time
and sadly, it could happen again.
I beg you, please
think again, for I do not want to see the people have to fight for their
freedom ever again. Once was enough,
and this is why our Constitution as it stands at present, must remain so.
Yours most sincerely, A P. (Mrs) Address removed
http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/employment_and_social_policy/equality_between_men_and_women/ Noted, UK Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and
later Equality Act 2010. Except that none can ever be equal to our Monarchy.
May it always be so.
And here is the reply I have had
today 17.6.2013. From the Cabinet Office, 4th Floor (SE) 1 House Guards Rd, London SW1H 2HQ Dated simply, June 2013.
Dear Mrs P.
Thank you for your recent correspondence to the Prime Minister, David
Cameron, on the Succession to the Crown Bill, in particular you believe that
the legislation is not required. I am
responding as a member of the team working on Constitutional Reform. I am sorry for the delay in dealing with
this matter, this is due to an administrative error.
You express concerns regarding the Succession to the Crown
Bill, as you believe that there is no need to make alteration to the
Constitution. You sustain that changes
are not necessary and that changes are being rushed due to the Equality Act.
The Prime Minister announced at the Commonwealth Heads of
Government meeting in Perth on 28 October 2011 that, with the agreement of the fifteen
other Commonwealth realms of which her Majesty is also Head of State, the
government would change the rules of royal succession to end the system of male
preference primogeniture and the bar on those who marry Roman Catholics from
succeeding to the Throne and repeal and replace the Royal Marriages Act 1772.
The government received final agreement from all the
remaining Commonwealth Realms in December and the Bill was introduced into the
House of Commons shortly after.
Firstly, I would like to point out that changes to the laws
of succession are not due to pressure from Europe or from the Equality Act but
from a reasonable need to progress and evolve.
The Prime Minister states on 28 October 2011: “The great strength of our
constitutional approach is its ability to evolve. Attitudes have changed fundamentally over the centuries and some
of the our-dated rule – like some of the rules to succession – just don’t make
sense to us any more.
[…] “ (I do
not know what that is supposed to mean.-however, I have put it as it is there
in the letter. Anne)
The Deputy Prime Minister also stated on 22 January 2013
that: “On female succession, the real question that we need to ask is why it
has taken us so long. This is a nation
that prises itself on pioneering equality between sexes: a nation of great Queens such as Queen
Victoria and Elizabeth II. A woman can,
and has, been Head of the UK Government, yet still on our statute books, with
Parliament’s official backing, we have succession laws based on the supposed
superiority of men. That anachronism is
out of step with our society, it sends the wrong message to the rest of the
world, and it is time for the rules to change.”
We believe that the government’s commitment to end male
primogeniture and the bar on the Monarch and those in the line of succession
from marrying a Roman Catholic will end two significant areas of discrimination
in the UK.
The Succession to the Crown Bill received Royal Assent on 25th
April and became an Act. It can be
found at;
I hope this letter clarifies you concerns,
Yours sincerely (A
squiggle signature) Constitutional
Reform Team.
******************************
My comments and
please note. I had no reply
to my three letters on this subject UNTIL THE BILL
BECAME AN ACT.
Posts
