Thinking through the deselection of monarchs
A person who wishes to remain unnamed responded to our post on the deselection of sovereigns. We had observed that a remarkable number of British sovereigns had been deposed because they had broken their Coronation Oath and had not delivered justice to the British people.
Our correspondent's excellent points -
1 The way of doing things during the old Anglo-Saxon era was closer to that of a Presidency, except the word 'King' was employed and the barons elected their King, not the people.
2 High taxes are unjust when they embrace the description 'taxation without representation'. This issue of 'taxation without representation', probably more than any other, was the reason Charles 1 lost his head.
There is a modern parallel: our taxes are now being paid to finance the EU, where laws and expenses are being incurred by those who have not been elected and cannot be dismissed. Thus, the EU is equivalent to the King in the period from the 1630s, when Charles l ruled without Parliament, levying his own taxes via duties through Customs and Excise. Today, our Parliament must stump up and provide the EU with its financial requirements.
Our note: It does not appear to be The Queen who is costing us in taxes. The Royal Public Finances report for 2007-2008, just released by Buckingham Palace, shows that the UK tax payer contributes 66 pence to support The Queen in her official duties.
3 I would refer to the Coronation Oath of the Queen in the post. This is important because it was a solemn pledge between Monarch and people. Our people fight for the Crown, when the conditions necessitate such. If the Crown has reneged on its oath, for whom do the people fight and for what cause?
4 Your post ignores the situation of the abdication of King Edward Vlll. The abdication was thrust upon him and was, to this extent, a de-selection. His activities were believed to have been an abuse of office and, therefore, a breach of his Coronation Oath.
5 Yes, The Queen has it within her prerogative to dissolve Parliament and call an election. She has good cause to do so. Labour won its mandate by including in its manifesto a pledge to hold a referendum on the EU Constitution, which subverts our own Constitution. It has reneged on that pledge. It does not have popular support and, given the vote in Ireland (despite the billions they have received in EU grants since 1973), our people would overwhelmingly throw out the Lisbon Treaty. She should therefore approach Brown and demand the referendum be held or, assuming his refusal, dissolve Parliament at once and call an election.