web analytics

LONG TO REIGN OVER US

By Pete Moore On December 14th, 2011

FOUND: The first, ever, correct understanding of our British Constitution in the MSM.

From a priest, no less, and what a splendid sort he seems.

17 Responses to “LONG TO REIGN OVER US”

  1. Sad to read the words of a clearly intelligent and erudite man who seems to lack self-esteem.

    And I don’t mean you, Pete :)

  2. a lack of self esteem is not something I would ever associate with Mr Moore. Any man who feels justified and even virtuous about not paying his television license is surely suffering from delusions of greatness.. ;)

  3. The Queen rules through her ministers and she does not rule any the less for that. The minister does not attend to the details of his department’s administration. The minister has one inalienable function which is to secure the coherence of his department. The Queen has one inalienable function which is to secure the coherence of her country.

    It seems to be missing just one thing.

    There is not so much as a single sentence explaining how she actual performs this function.

  4. There is no British Constitution. We don’t have one.

  5. Typically British oversight.. :)

  6. We most certainly do have a British Constitution, and this is about the best explanation around.

    Study it well, there’ll be a test in the New Year.

  7. Pete,

    1) Common Law

    2) The Coronation Oath

    3) Magna Carta

    4) Statute of Westminster

    5) The Petition of Right, Declaration of Right and Bill of Rights

    6) The Act of Settlement of 1701

    7) The Act of Union

    Are you aware that nearly all the above are either ignored, considered irrelevant, or under attack??

  8. FewOrange,

    The Queen has one inalienable function which is to secure the coherence of her country.

    “It seems to be missing just one thing.

    “There is not so much as a single sentence explaining how she actual performs this function.”

    Silly boy. It’s obvious: God does the heavy lifting, Liz waves to the forelock-tuggers.

  9. Agit8ed –

    Something does not cease to exist when it is ignored. As Americans are increasingly discovering, a constitution is only as good as its enforcement.

    Glad to see you had a look. I recommend saving the link for future reference.

  10. Pete

    You are wrong. We have a Parliament. It can legislate anything it wants so long as it has Royal assent. There is no statutory constitution that it has to answer to legally as for example American lawmakers do.

  11. Pete, we all had a stomp around this particular field not long ago, and I seem to remember saying that much as I respect the Queen and all that she stands for, she is simply an irrelevance.
    She has no real power, she can only offer her comments and advice, not real decisions.
    So as I said above and Colm has mentioned, she goes along with what the Prime Minister of the Day wants, and if she dislikes it she keeps it to herself.
    It’s sad but true. A complete reversal of the problem Oliver Cromwell and friends faced.

  12. Colm –

    And again, Parliament is a creature of the law, it is not above the law.

    Agit8ed –

    And again, the monarch has real power, indeed the power of the executive is vested in the monarch. Though this is ignored, facts remain. Read the link you have. Indeed, read the front page of any statute, where in large type you will see: “BE IT ENACTED by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty …”

    This is a statement of constitutional reality, that Parliament is merely an advisory chamber and that it is the monarch, not Parliament, who gives power to law, therefore that it is the monarch who is sovereign, not Parliament.

  13. Pete

    It is purely a statement of the tradition of how we word our acts, The Queen cannot make or abolish laws only Parliament can – and she is bound by duty to accept the advice of her Prime Minister. If the PM requests her to give assent to a duly passed Act of Parliament she will do it. If a future Parliament voted to pass an Act abolishing the monarchy and enacting a Republic following a manifesto agreement ata general election do you think the current Monarch would refuse to give assent to such a bill and if she/he did do you think that would be unconstitutional and unlawful ?

  14. `pete,

    “the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty …”

    “This is a statement of constitutional reality”

    Heaven help us all. One wonders how a less-than-most-excellent majesty might look, or how unconstitutional reality might appear.

    It’s as though one had stumbled into a badly written Harry Potter novel.

  15. Colm –

    ” … and she is bound by duty to accept the advice of her Prime Minister.”

    Of course she’s not bound by any such ‘duty’. What ‘duty’? What is the authority for this statement? Her duty is to the law and her Coronation Oath.

    “If a future Parliament voted to pass an Act abolishing the monarchy and enacting a Republic …”

    Parliament cannot do that. It has no such authority. The monarchy is a sacred compact between the sovereign and the people. It is above Parliament and untouchable by it.

    Our monarch would be duty bound to dissolve that Parliament and ensure that the traitorous parties to the coup against the people be brought to justice.

  16. Dream on Pete..

  17. The power of the monarch has long been a polite fiction.

    Ask her. She’ll tell you.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.