British History, Culture & Sports, History of Freedom, Heroes, Inventors, Brits at their Best.com, English country scene

Blog Home | All Posts

An exchange of letters with Buckingham Palace

On the 25th of June, I wrote to The Queen that her action in giving Her Royal Assent to the Lisbon Treaty, which destroys Britain's independence, was not the action of a constitutional monarch bound in covenant with her people to defend their laws and customs. A few weeks later, I received a letter from Buckingham Palace:

letter_queen_july.jpg

The key sentence is "I should explain to you that there is no question of Her Majesty, as constitutional sovereign, refusing Royal Assent to an Act which has been passed by both Houses of Parliament".

I responded with a letter dated 11 August 2008 -

Your Majesty,

I wrote to Your Majesty recently about the Lisbon treaty. Ms Bonici sent a reply. It didn't have my name on it as she has apparently been very busy dealing with many letters similar to mine.

So many of your subjects have written to Your Majesty precisely because Your Majesty is a constitutional monarch. Your Majesty's subjects expected that a constitutional monarch would uphold the constitution. A part of that constitution is the Coronation Oath, which Your Majesty swore before God and to the people.

Archbishop of Canterbury: Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the Peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and of your Possessions and the other Territories to any of them belonging or pertaining, according to their respective laws and customs?

Queen: I solemnly promise so to do.

Archbishop: Will you to your power cause Law and Justice, in Mercy, to be executed in all your judgements?

Queen: I will.

At the time Your Majesty swore the Oath we British were sovereign and made our own laws. Our traditional custom is to freely govern ourselves. With Royal Assent to the Lisbon Treaty Act and Your Majesty's subsequently signing the ratification document, Britain becomes a mere province of the European Union. Your Majesty's subjects will be governed by Brussels, and not by Your Majesty's government.

It is Your Majesty's right, nay, it is Your Majesty's duty and obligation, to refuse Royal Assent to Acts of Parliament that threaten the People's laws and customs or Your Majesty's constitutional position.

Thus it appears to me that Your Majesty has violated the Coronation Oath.

Yours sincerely,

David Abbott

blog_buckingham_palace.jpg

I have not yet received a reply to my second letter.

I wonder, if both Houses of Parliament had caved in and passed an act allowing Hitler to run Britain in 1940, would George VI have given his Royal Assent to it?

Comments (1)

Anonymous:

Excellent letter David. Well done.

What is the point of the process of 'Royal Assent' (a prerogative of the Monarch) if it is automatically provided regardless of all considerations?

Indeed, what is the point of the British Constitution if the Monarch does not fulfil her role within it?

As for refusing consent to an Act that had passed both Houses of Parliament, it is extremely pertinent that both Labour and the Tories were elected into
Parliament on the basis of a referendum on Lisbon (which, under our Constitution, would not have been binding but would have provided guidance).

The Government reneged on that promise. On that basis, the Monarch had every right to threaten to dissolve Parliament and actually do so in the
absence of such a referendum and call a General Election.

Post a comment

(Please do give us your name or the name you write under in the form below and your URL if you have one. Your comment may take a little time to appear. Thanks for waiting.)

COPYRIGHT