17 5 mins 13 yrs

The role of a constitutional monarch is to personify the democratic state, to legitimate authority, to assure the legality of its measures and to guarantee the execution of its popular will.

– Queen Elizabeth II on a visit to Canada in 1964.

795151-1481975-thumbnail.jpg
You’re not the only one who’s gloomy, love
Eight years after those words, in 1972, she signed the European Communities Act 1972 in an attempt to legitimise Prime Minister Heath’s treachery and Parliament accepted the superiority of European law within Great Britain over our own statutes. Heath earlier had been warned by Lord Wilberforce that the signing of the Treaty of Accession to the Treaty of Rome, together with the recognition of the superiority of the European Court of Justice to our own system of appeal, would mean a total loss of Sovereignty. Heath went ahead and signed the Treaty which, in reality, is an article of capitulation. The Sovereignty of the British People which the Queen embodied – the actual embodiment of which made her our Sovereign – was surrendered to a foreign power. Having surrendered that Sovereignty, in an act of abdication, the Queen ceased to be Sovereign, as had her uncle Edward VIII in 1936 when he abdicated and ceased to be Sovereign and our Constitutional Monarch. Like the concept ‘unique’, a Sovereign either is or isn’t. Elizabeth Windsor cannot be Sovereign while being subject to the government and law of a foreign power. In Edward’s case the Sovereignty moved directly on his abdication to his brother who became our Constitutional Monarch George VI while Edward became the Duke of Windsor. "The King is dead; long live the King.” This ensures the continuity of our Constitutional Monarchical system of government.

Having ceased to be Sovereign, Elizabeth Windsor also ceased to be Queen under our Constitutional Monarchy, as her uncle had ceased to be King. No longer embodying the Sovereignty of the British People, she accepted mediatisation as had many of her German forebears in the 19th.Century when Metternich was constructing the German Federation after the collapse of the Napoleonic Empire in 1815. This left her with a titular role as Queen but without any constitutional or governing power. In this way the loss of our Sovereignty was disguised from the British People in a charade that has been continued to the present day. This charade of normality will continue until some later date, when those who govern us illegally feel it safe to reveal. Lord Falconer, Alderman the Rt.Hon.Sir Gavyn Arthur as Lord Mayor of London, Lord Brittan and many more with authority have said that Parliament is no longer sovereign, and has not been since the signing of ECA1972. This is a tacit admission that, if the Queen is no longer Sovereign in Parliament, she is no longer Sovereign anywhere and has not been Sovereign since she granted the ECA1972 the Royal Assent.

Therefore, as she ceased to be Sovereign in 1972, from that moment she has not had constitutional authority to call a Parliament and thus legitimate its authority to legislate. Indeed all the things that she said she could do in her speech in 1964 she can no longer do. Therefore the thing that has been called "Parliament" since 1972 has had no authority and in fact is not a legal Parliament. It also has not had any constitutional authority to "pass" any of the "legislation" it is said to have passed since ECA1972. In fact we now have no national means at our disposal so to do. As she now no longer embodies the sovereignty of the British People she has nothing to pass on to the rightful Heir to the Throne. The succession to the Throne has been destroyed along with our Constitutional Monarchy.

Discuss.

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

17 thoughts on “A Queen In Name Only

  1. Pete

    You sound like those die hard Irish Republicans who believe the 1918 Dail Eirann remains the only legitimate Irish govt. and who view the ’26 county state’ as a false entity.

  2. Colm –

    You sound like someone not arguing against what I say. If you disagree, why?

  3. Pete

    We have been through this before. In the UK Parliament is sovereign and can pass any legislation and approve any treaty it wishes. If the monarch grants Royal Assent it becomes law. She has not acted unlaefully, indeed she cannot act unlawfully . We have no statutory constitution. She remains lawfully or monarch and our parliament remains the embodiment of our sovereignty. You can say that the 1973 decisions were politically scandalous shameful and outrageous but not that they are illegitimate.

  4. >>The succession to the Throne has been destroyed along with our Constitutional Monarchy.<<

    Pete, if the Constitutional Monarchy is no more, I fail to see why you keep bringing Elizabeth Windsor into discussions of politics. She is a normal pensioner, let her be.

    I’m no expert on the subject, but I always assumed Parliament had been in the driving seat of British politics at the latest since 1645 when it passed a bill of attainer to execute the King’s favourite Archbishop Laud despite him having received a Royal pardon. This position was established with the "Glorious Revolution".

    "Put not your faith in Princes", Pete. Whatever about the royals’ private feelings on political matters, none of them would, or could, lift a finger to help the British people even if they were being sold out.

  5. Still as ignorant of the British Constitution as always eh, Colm.

    If Parliament were sovereign, it’s sovereignty would be disolved when the Queen disolved Parliament, which would be absurd. Because she is was sovereign, Parliament is only a lawful assembly when she opens Parliament (i.e. when the Crown is in Parliament) and may no longer sit when the Crown is withdrawn.

    You are right, a Bill is only Law once the monarch grants Royal Assent. This is because Parliament is only an advisory body under our Constitution.

    To say that the Queen cannot act unlawfully displays a real ignorance. Ours is a Constitutional Monarchy governed by law. The law is supreme with even the Crown subservient to it.

  6. The law is supreme. Correct Pete. You are beginning to get it. Now who makes the law ? Answer that correctly and you will be concurring with my view..

  7. I need to clarify something. When I said the Queen cannot act unlawfully I did not of course mean she cannot commit a crime, only that she cannot act unlawfully by granting Royal Assent to any Act of parliament, which you claim she did in 1973, because there is no such thing as an unlawful Act of Parliament.

  8. You’re wrong Pete. Your country is governed by laws. Your Parliament can make or overturn these laws. The Monarch on the other hand can’t. That was in the Bill of Rights of 1689, that much I know, and the monarch’s position vis-a-vis parliament has only been further diluted since then.

    Go for a republic – much more honest, transparent and accountable.

  9. Colm –

    You yourself stated who makes the law, the monarch does by Royal Assent. It is Crown Law for goodness sake. Or, it was, but now most of it is foreign law, since the Queen and her plenipotentiaries gave away the sovereignty of the British people. It’s not only me, the view of Lord Willoughby de Broke, from a recent speech in the Lords:

    "That sounds wonderfully statesman-like and unarguable as a principle, but it falls because, as my noble friend Lord Leach said so cogently in his speech, the British people have not been asked and they have therefore never given their consent for their representative parliamentary government, as the noble Lord, Lord Brittan, has it, to hand over permanently to an unelected bureaucracy in Brussels powers that were only lent to them temporarily for the term of a five-year Parliament. However, that is what has been happening over the years; over the treaties, Parliament has been giving away powers that were not its to give away. That is why people are so furious, so disillusioned with the whole EU process."

    We vest Parliament powers via the monarch – as the embodiment of the sovereignty of the British people – for a limited time when the monarch opens Parliament. But Parliament has no sovereignty itself.

  10. Noel Cunningham –

    You’re wrong Pete. Your country is governed by laws.

    I said that.

    Your Parliament can make or overturn these laws.

    Only because of the powers leant to it, and even then the Crown must assent.

    The Monarch on the other hand can’t.

    So you’ll agree that not even the Crown may go against the Bill of Rights, which specifically outlaws the procuring, promotion or securing of foreign dominion over the realm. This itself is merely a statutory declaration of the common law position, the common law being the supreme law and untouchable by Parliament, a position conceded by Parliament in the Act of Settlement.

  11. >>So you’ll agree that not even the Crown may go against the Bill of Rights,<<

    Yes, probably. But surely there must be some mechanism in place in Britain that citizens can use to test whether some act of Parliament violates what you call the "common law position". Why was it not exercised in or after 1972, or was it? That would resolve the matter.

  12. Noel Cunningham –

    We have two such mechanisms. The first is the monarch and the reason why Parliament may only advise, with a Bill becoming Law only after Royal Assent.

    Like her predecessors, the Queen made a covenent with the British People, when she was Crowned, by making a solemn pledge. Before the Crown was placed on her head she covenented to "govern the people in accordance with their Laws and Customs." In return for this pledge we vested our Sovereignty in her, she became the Head of Government and the political Governor of the Nation.

    Those who claim that the Monarchy is above politics are in error and either make the claim from ignorance or because they have dubious motives. The Monarchy is at the very heart of government, in fact we can have no government without it.

    Her Crowning also obliged her to refuse the Royal Assent to any Bill which acted against the interests of the people, or were in any way contrary to our laws and customs.

    The second mechanism is the judiciary, supposedly independent from the legislature and loyal to the Crown (i.e. loyal to the embodiment of the Sovereignty of the British People). In truth the judiciary has long been taken over political interests and is guided by those who are loyal to ideologies.

    Various attempts have been to overturn the ECA1972 without success. Nevertheless, the law is the law and the Constitution is what it is. I’m told that university law courses stopped covering the Laws of Treason 25 years ago and that now very few in the judiciary have much knowledge of them or of the Constitution which they are formulated to protect.

    But as I said, our foundations are what they are, however much manure has been placed on top to bury them.

  13. Noel Cunningham –

    By the way, there is a constitutional restriction asserting that the Royal Prerogative may not be used in repugnance to the law. Redress and remedy are therefore compulsory upon the Crown if there is proven misuse. That the Queen is supposed to be Governor of the Nation and Head of Government suggests that which is currently taking place must prove beyond all doubt that she is no longer Sovereign Monarch of this nation.

    Nota bene, that it is that same Royal Prerogative of Treaty making powers that is being transferred to the EU (The EU as a whole, no longer just to the EEC as it was before) because the EU shall have Legal Personality under article 46a of the Euro constitution. It is not in the government’s gift to give the Royal Prerogative away, to any other body of Britons or foreigners.

    Treason is violation of the solemn Oath of Allegiance to the Crown of all MPs, ministers and Privy Councillors, and through the Crown to the sovereign people of this Country.

  14. >>Redress and remedy are therefore compulsory upon the Crown if there is proven misuse.<<

    Who proved misuse? I’m sure HM wouldn’t exercise her prerogative on such an important matter without consulting her legal advisors.

    And I can’t imagine that all the constitutional implications were not thrashed out and probably subject to endless discussion – both in public and behind palace doors – in Britain pre-1972.

    Still, it’s interesting stuff all right, at least theoretically. I think at least you are right that this is by far the most important political issue facing Britons today.

  15. Bernard –

    Verily, as he’s the patron saint of politicians I hope not. Name aside, was he the last person to argue for the law and Constitution being upheld? It might be close.

Comments are closed.