Britannia Radio

Dated  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.

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                                        ***************************************

This one dated 23rd 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 Mem,ber 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,

A P