13 8 mins 13 yrs

Black2040.jpgATW’s COMMENTARIAT may – incredibly – include those who regard me as a bit of a nutter where the Queen, the British Constitution and the destruction of the Sovereignty of the British people is concerned. Yep, I have something of a bee in my bonnet on this and with good reason; our great nation has been subject to a coup d’etat. A slow motion coup d’etat it has been, but it is no less of a takeover by a foreign, hostile power for that.

How gratifying it is then to see that I am not alone. Archbishop Cranmer has a few words to say about the Treason committed by those in high office and the negligence of the so-called Monarch who is obliged by oath and law to defend our sovereignty (my emphasis):

One of the most significant aspects of the treaties of Rome, Maastricht, and Lisbon concerns the constitutional position of the Monarch. During her reign, Queen Elizabeth I stated: ‘To no power whatsoever is my crown subject save to that of Christ the King of Kings.’  Section Three of the Treason Felony Act of 1848 asserts that condemnation is incurred ‘If any person whatsoever shall, within the United Kingdom or without, compass, imagine, invent, devise or intend to deprive or depose our most gracious Lady the Queen…from the style, honour, or royal name of the imperial crown of the United Kingdom.’

The Treaty of Maastricht made the Queen subject to the European Union and a citizen of that Union. As a citizen of a different political entity and being subject to past and future judgements of the Court of the European Communities in Luxembourg, from which there is no appeal, her role as a constitutional monarch has been put into doubt. By the treaty, this Court was confirmed in authority over her courts, in which she was not previously arraignable. Her status as a citizen of the EU has rendered her, like the rest of the British people, ‘subject to the duties imposed thereby’.

Quite, Your Grace. The Treason Felony Act was drafted specifically to protect the position of the Sovereign and is still in full effect.  The style, honour, or royal name (King/Queen) bears no division. Like the state of being pregnant or the concept ‘unique’, one is or is not. The Queen is only so because she is the embodiment of the sovereignty of the British people and it is this embodiment that confers legitimacy on Parliament, via ‘the Crown in Parliament’.  If the British people are no longer sovereign, then Elizabeth Windsor can be Queen no longer.

A country cannot have two constitutions. The laws and constitution of the United Kingdom are diametrically opposed by European laws and the European Constitution. One has to submit to the other, and, as is observed and clearly stated, the Lisbon Treaty ‘takes primacy’. If the EU Constitution is superior to the British Constitution, at the point the Treaty was given Royal Assent the British Constitution was abolished. Since the EU is a military union, it has the means at its disposal to carry out its objectives.

Well said, Your Grace. No other conclusion is possible. The fulcrum of the British Constitution is that our sovereignty is vested in the Monarch. Remove that principle, or declare that Britons are no longer sovereign in their own land, all the rest crumbles.

Her Majesty the Queen has received petitions from the Lords, thousands upon thousands of letters from her subjects, and sworn affidavits withholding and withdrawing allegiance and obedience to Her Majesty, her heirs and successors, until such time as she is free to exercise her lawful authority.

Me among them.

And still she gives her assent to a Bill about which she can be in no doubt with regard to its contentious nature, the illegality of its implementation following the Irish rejection, or its illegitimacy under our Common Law birthright.

To those who will cite the ‘convention’ that the Queen acts on her Ministers’ advice, Patrick Vessey deals with that over at the Libertarian Party UK blog:

This is mere precedent, however, not Constitutional fact. Her Majesty does indeed have the authority to withhold Assent, as this is one of the reserve powers fully vested in the Monarch.

Absolutely. There are those who also raise the dread spectre of a ‘constitutional crises’ if Her Majesty were to tell her Ministers that she is bound by law and oath to protect and uphold the British Constitution, to govern in accordance with the laws and customs of we, the People, from whom the Monarch and Parliament derive there power. Well, here we are, a subject people of a foreign, hostile power, subject to foreign courts and foreign laws with a puppet Parliament and a Queen rendered suzerein – we already HAVE a constitutional crises!

King Harold lost his Kingdom a thousand years ago on Senlac Hill, but at least he put up a fight. Queen Elizabeth II simply signed it all away on the advice of traitors. It cannot be said that she was duped or ill-prepared for her role. She was rigorously schooled in the fundamentals of our Constitution when young. Patrick Vessey at LPUK goes speculates as to why she has behaved in this way by quoting one of our better commentators on the Monarchy, Dr David Starkey. His conclusion is one that I’ve long suspected also, that for all the style and grace with which she’s represented us, the Queen just isn’t that interested:  

Her lack of curiosity extends, [Starkey] thinks, to the history of the monarchy itself. In 2003 Starkey was asked to curate an exhibition on Elizabeth I at the National Maritime Museum. After it was hung, he had lunch with the Queen. It was not a success for either of them. She was piqued – as he tells it – because her gin and Dubonnet did not arrive quickly enough; he was piqued because she showed no interest whatsoever in his show. It took him a while to work out why. "I didn’t realise that she had no interest whatever in her predecessors. Her history begins with her great grandfather. That is it. It really is it."

As I said, she is the Worst Monarch Ever. If she cannot bring herself to face down her ministers and defend the sovereignty of the British people, she ought to confirm her abdication and let us continue without her.

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

13 thoughts on “The Worst Monarch Ever

  1. I tend to agree with the Beatles when it comes to Her Majesty (she’s a pretty nice girl). Not a monarchist myself but I don’t begrudge those who wish to be. She seems to be a fairly decent Head of State and has probably been your best ambassador of goodwill for decades. Don’t pick on the poor Queen.

  2. She seems to be a fairly decent Head of State and has probably been your best ambassador of goodwill for decades. Don’t pick on the poor Queen.

    Ive been working through my English history recently. Finished Cromwell by Antonia Fraser over the holidays. An interesting read and a fascinating insight into those times. Ive also read a little about the "glorious revolution". In both cases monarchs were deposed for similar reasons.

    As it stands today, foreigners seem to think of pomp and tradition when they think of the Monarchy. The monarchy are seen as either a tourism draw or a means to sell magazines. The Queen is seen as a lovely lady and arent the family great and all (leaving out charles of course 🙂 )

    In reality, the Queen has a serious constitutional role to play in the UK. She is the head of state.

    Pete. Looking on wiki with regards to Elizabeth II, I noticed the following quote at the end of a section on the Queens role in government which goes

    it is generally accepted that the sovereign cannot be acting unconstitutionally when acting on the advice of her or his ministers.

    The term "it is generally accepted" seems to me to be a very vague term here. I do realise this is wiki and all, but surely there is clarity somewhere on this. This comes to the heart of what I think you are saying (although im probably wrong), in that if her ministers recommend signing such treaties as the treaty of Rome, is the Queen acting constitutionally and within her prerogative or is there a higher role she must play which would cause her to ignore the advice of her ministers? Or is it that you are taking issue with the fact that she didnt ignore the advice of her ministers and decide that the treaty was not in the best interests of England.

  3. Kloot –

    I’ve read some old tosh on wiki, and that’s about top of the pile. Whoever wrote that needs to go and do something – anything – else, because clearly they know nothing of the British Constitution or the concept of the rule of law.

    Our Constitutional Monarchy is formed and framed by common and statute law. It is a creature of the law and the Queen is bound to uphold it as much as anyone.

    Magna Carta, the Articles of Religion, Act of Succession, Declaration and Bill of Rights and Act of Union (as well as others) form the parameters of the Monarchy and the Queen is bound by them.

    The Queen is advised by the Privy Council. The full oath that each Councillor must make is:

    I will to my uttermost bear faith and allegiance unto the Queen’s Majesty; and will assist and defend all jurisdictions, pre-eminences, and authorities granted to Her Majesty and annexed to the crown by Acts of Parliament or otherwise, against all foreign princes, persons, prelates, states and potentates. And generally in all things I will do as a faithful and true servant ought to do to Her Majesty. So help me God.

    When they breach this oath, the Queen must slap them down. In not doing so when presented with the various treaties and constitutions of the EU, she is acting unconstitutionally.

  4. Fascinating point Kloot. Even more so when you consider that the Queens role has to be seen to be balanced with the will of the people and therefore in line with her government more so than ever in modern times.

    It is obvious that the reason the Queen follows this line more fervently is that the role of monarchy is constantly questioned in 2008 where it was not one hundred years ago thanks largely to the way our traditions and history has been squandered in education and is viewed cynically around the world (everyone luuurves to hate the Brits). She is conscious of this fact and even scared to put a foot wrong where the royal budget is concerned because her goverment advises it. We the people have allowed her role to become less than it should be and only WE are to blame.

    Meanwhile she has, in modern times and in consideration of that relevant fact regards the role of modern monarchies, played a tremendous role as an Ambassador, rode that pathetic dreary Diana storm with grace (if you want to see an example of that public hatred Pete look no further than that episode as an example) and she continues to be a wonderful monarch and dignified head of State.

    I assume Pete M has noted the utter lack of public interest in the EU to the degree that at no point has anyone bothered to express to Her Majesty in any major fashion that she should apparently exercise her powers now. Yet he demonises her for that ‘ignorance’ she has taken on her *elected* government’s advice.

    When i watch George Bush or Gordon Brown jumping out of helicopters and into Windsor (Bush) or fumbling around at the speakers box (Brown) I thank God for her.

    Meanwhile i read these bizarre posts and wonder why Pete M continually wishes to find fault with everyone but the British public?

  5. Alison –

    … the Queens role has to be seen to be balanced with the will of the people and therefore in line with her government more so than ever in modern times.

    How do you expect to get away with rubbish like that? Our Constitutional Monarchy is framed by law and the Coronation Oath. Nothing else comes into it.

    I assume Pete M has noted the utter lack of public interest in the EU to the degree that at no point has anyone bothered to express to Her Majesty in any major fashion that she should apparently exercise her powers now.

    I assume you didn’t read the post, where it mentions:

    Her Majesty the Queen has received petitions from the Lords, thousands upon thousands of letters from her subjects, and sworn affidavits withholding and withdrawing allegiance and obedience to Her Majesty, her heirs and successors, until such time as she is free to exercise her lawful authority.

    In fact we know that hundreds of thousands of people, maybe more, have petitioned the Queen in the years since 1972, when she effectively abdicated. Note the last three words of that quote; " … her lawful authority". She isn’t bound by any authority at all to accept always the words of her Privy Councillors. She is bound by law and oath to uphold the British Constitution, at the centre of which is the sovereignty of the British people.

  6. Pete

    I rather wonder the same of you. How ON GODS EARTH do you expect to get away with banging on about the constitution when the people are blissfully unaware of its importance, half dont know it exists, and the Queen has spent the last decades listening to the representative government to sustain her position, successive governments who have continually pushed its power as paramount. You keep skipping round the issue of the government as reps of the people and the increasing importance placed on this and the dwindling support for the relevance of monarchy as an important political instrument. A few letters from some crusty old tossers wont change that overwhelming fact. I seriously doubt it amounts to hundreds of thousands. Pah. Wake up and smell the coffee please. You know damn well that if the Queen started bandying about her supreme powers the chances are the monarchy would be in the dustbin in a matter of days from the very people you consistently fail to recognise as having reshaped her relevance. We sure as hell would have a referendum on that one pushed on us by the government and you would get the result you want I expect. Quite WHY you think this bit of Queen bashing is in any way achieving anything or a pertinent way to address the constitutional issues you raise is bizarre. Stop blaming Her Majesty for what her governments have done and we the people have ALLOWED to happen.

    "in the years since 1972, when she effectively abdicated."…so whats the point of this post then. You’re a bit late. As were all those thousands of letter writers.

  7. Alison, are you saying that people generally get the government they deserve? George Carlin said it like this…

    "Now, there’s one thing you might have noticed I don’t complain about: politicians," he explained in a routine that challenged all the premises of today’s half-a-loaf reformers. "Everybody complains about politicians. Everybody says they suck. Well, where do people think these politicians come from? They don’t fall out of the sky. They don’t pass through a membrane from another reality. They come from American parents and American families, American homes, American schools, American churches, American businesses and American universities, and they are elected by American citizens. This is the best we can do folks. This is what we have to offer. It’s what our system produces: Garbage in, garbage out. If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you’re going to get selfish, ignorant leaders. Term limits ain’t going to do any good; you’re just going to end up with a brand new bunch of selfish, ignorant Americans. So, maybe, maybe, maybe, it’s not the politicians who suck. Maybe something else sucks around here… like, the public. Yeah, the public sucks. There’s a nice campaign slogan for somebody: ‘The Public Sucks. Fuck Hope.’"

  8. "Nothing else comes into it"…………says Pete

    "The royal prerogative is theoretically in the hands of the Crown but for some time now has for practical purposes been in the hands of the government. There are numerous non legal conventional rules which regulate the exercise of prerogative power. To give just one example the Crown has never refused to assent to a Bill since the early 18th century. The unwritten rule is that royal assent is given if the government demands it. Prerogative powers are also subject to limited judicial control. The courts can for example determine whether prerogative power exists and its extent"

    Britain Unwrapped: Government and Constitution Explained

    How does that stack up with the government demand based on the people’s referendum that was held on our entry to the EEC Pete to which the people voted YES. In your view. And Starkeys.

  9. Alison –

    A few letters from some crusty old tossers …

    What a charming lady you can be.

    How does that stack up with the government demand based on the people’s referendum that was held on our entry to the EEC Pete to which the people voted YES.

    We were lied to. We know this because the release after 30 years of government documents proves this. We were even lied to at the time with the reassurance that we were joining a common market (known as the Common Market, which is how the odd crusty old tosser still refers to it):

    The house as a whole may therefore be reassured that there is no question of this bill (The European Communities Bill 1972) making a thousand years of British law subservient to the Code Napoleon.

    – Mr. Geoffrey Rippon, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. Hansard, 15 Feb 1972. Pg.270.

    At least some understood our Constitution and knew of what was at stake:

    Our sovereignty cannot be bartered away by the Solicitor General, or even by the Prime Minister, because it is not theirs to give. I speak not only of the sovereignty of this house, but also of the higher sovereignty of the British people.

    – Mr Alfred Morris MP. Hansard, 17 Feb 1972 Pg. 727-8.

    Unfortunately, the traitors prevailed:

    There is no reason to think that the impact of community law would weaken or destroy any of the basic rights and liberties of individuals under the law in the United Kingdom.

    – The Lord High Chancellor, Command Paper 3301, 1967, on the constitutional implications of the UK joining the European Community.

    … no question of any erosion of essential national sovereignty

    – White Paper on joining the Common Market, issued by the Heath government in July 1971.

    Three years later, writing in support of the "Yes" campaign in the 1975 referendum, Roy Jenkins was equally misleading:

    The position of the Queen is not affected. English Common Law is not affected.

    My chief regret is that most of these vermin are now dead and cannot be hanged. However, you can see, we were lied to.

  10. I didn’t mean you, i missed your ‘Me Among Them’ bit I must admit. I wouldn’t get that personal Pete (unlike some ‘gents’ round this place eh) but these geezers plus you all writing to the Queen were well late firing off their concerns. I believe its a few hundred years now we have been usurping royal prerogatives. Much less ones where we put this stuff openly to the public.

    "we were lied to"

    So then was the Queen. My point was about royal assent, democracy and our unwritten Constitution.

  11. The Queen isn’t the brightest bulb, and she’s simply a pawn in a bigger game.

    Professor Arnold J Toynbee, at the 4th Annual Conference of Institutions of International Relations, held in Copenhagen 8th-10th June 1931, stated the following:
    ‘We are at present working, discreetly but with all our might, to wrest the mysterious political force called sovereignty out of the clutches of the local national states of our world. AND ALL THE TIME WE ARE DENYING WITH OUR LIPS WHAT WE ARE DOING WITH OUR HANDS…. The… local states of the world will no doubt survive as administrative conveniences, but sooner or later sovereignty will depart from them….’

    This has been happening for some time now, and the traitors’ ambitions are almost achieved.

  12. Allan@Aberdeen –

    Toynbee, (IIRC) grandfather of the Guardian’s Polly Pot, did indeed say that. In short, he outlined the Fabian international socialist position. The Labour Party has long been a Fabian organisation, never more so than now with most Cabinet members and very many MPs a part of that foul institution.

  13. Pete,

    In Rep. of Ireland, even though the President is thought of as largely ceremonial, (s)he has the power to refer bills to the Supreme Court (after consulting the Council of State) where (s)he feels they are "repugnant" to the Constitution.

    This has been used on a few occasions – most notably in the 70s when President O’Dalaigh did so and earned the wrath of a drunken Minister for his diligence!

Comments are closed.