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

Blog Home | All Posts

"Your contract with the people"

f_elizabeth_ii.jpg

The Queen at the time of her Coronation
Image: Cecil Beaton

Elisabeth Beckett is in her eighties. She is ill and has not been given long to live.

We described her earlier efforts to defend freedom in Britain .

The British Constitution depends on a balance of power between Parliament, the Sovereign and the Judiciary. The Sovereign’s powers are limited, but they include the prerogative of refusing Royal Assent to acts of Parliament that undermine the people’s laws and liberties.

It is said that The Queen does not believe in refusing Royal Assent. Her Majesty recently gave Royal Assent to the Lisbon Treaty, which would establish the European Union as a foreign power over the British people.

Elisabeth Beckett has just written a letter to The Queen. She avers -

I believe that you have done this on the basis of the Fabian inspired Parliament Act of 1911 which argued untruthfully that since royal assent had never been denied by a monarch since 1707 (when Queen Anne sent back a Bill) the use of the royal assent had fallen into abeyance. This claim was untrue and treasonable. Only the year before, Asquith had been forced to go to the country by Edward VII who sent back the same Bill to Parliament. And indeed monarchs had refused assent on at least six other occasions since 1707. On each occasion this refusal of assent was because the Bills concerned breached our constitution.

. . .Your contract with the people of this country and the colonies and dominions cannot be destroyed by the chicanery of the Fabians in the 1911 Act, nor by subsequent legislation. If you have the courage to fulfil your contract, however belatedly, you could prorogue Parliament now and have a free election with or without party divisions so that this country can go forward in a proper and united way to remove us from the difficulties that have ensued since the 1911 Parliament Act.

A parliament controlled by the European Union is not democratic or representative. It is no parliament at all. Elisabeth's constitutional argument is also a practical argument with real consequences for Brits - will they decide how they live or will people they do not know tell them. We leave you to consider Elisabeth's entire letter.

Old Vicarage, Alston, Cumbria CA9 3RE

21 January 2009


Her Majesty The Queen

Buckingham Palace
London SW1A 1AA

Madam,

Giving careful consideration to the mode of address in this letter, although in courtesy I have addressed it in conventional manner, it is clear that having, in effect, abdicated by failure to perform your coronation oath you leave the people of this nation without effective titular head to whom we may address our petitions. I write to you only in your pre-eminence in Common Law.

I write on Edmund Burke’s remark that for evil to flourish it is sufficient for good men to do nothing.

At your coronation you swore on oath to rule this country according to our laws and customs. This contract with us was written clearly in Magna Carta and replicated by Edward I in 1274. After saying that he would give no such oath, the archbishops, bishops, barons and freemen said that, in this case, they would get another king.

In Magna Carta it was made clear that if the monarch went against this oath then chapter 61 would apply, the contract would be broken and the monarch would have to give up his position and possessions. You have, throughout your reign, disregarded our laws and customs in the legislation that has gone through Parliament.

I believe that you have done this on the basis of the Fabian inspired Parliament Act of 1911 which argued untruthfully that since royal assent had never been denied by a monarch since 1707 (when Queen Anne sent back a Bill) the use of the royal assent had fallen into abeyance. This claim was untrue and treasonable. Only the year before, Asquith had been forced to go to the country by Edward VII who sent back the same Bill to Parliament. And indeed monarchs had refused assent on at least six other occasions since 1707. On each occasion this refusal of assent was because the Bills concerned breached our constitution.

In other words, the 1911 claim is incorrect and the monarch’s assent was never and can never be deemed unnecessary or automatic, even though George V chose to accept that the royal assent was now a formality and that the monarch could not, in reality refuse assent – as in the Northern Ireland Bill.

Despite all the long years of your reign this method of agreement, either forced on you, or under “automatic assent” nevertheless cannot be upheld as lawful.

Many people who have written to you on constitutional matters have received replies from your secretary (most recently, Sonia Bonici) saying that their letter had been forwarded to the government department misleadingly called the Department of Constitutional Affairs and Ministry of Justice. Your compliance with this has permitted the judiciary under these government departments to claim, as in the Chagos Archipelago appeal, that our fundamental liberties do not exist and that the peoples of these islands have no rights under our law.

I am old and now seriously ill. I cannot die without making clear to you that you have broken your oath to us your people.

The 1911 act purports to permit taxes to be levied on us merely by a majority in the House of Commons and without reference to the upper chamber. This again is against our constitution and specifically not permitted by our Petition of Right of 1627. The most serious instance of this is the use of our taxes to fund the banking system of this country: this is being explained to the electorate as a step which will in some way make us rich, whilst in fact it is not only unlawful, but a most serious abrogation of our rights and your duties under our constitution.

Your contract with the people of this country and the colonies and dominions cannot be destroyed by the chicanery of the Fabians in the 1911 Act, nor by subsequent legislation. If you have the courage to fulfil your contract, however belatedly, you could prorogue Parliament now and have a free election with or without party divisions so that this country can go forward in a proper and united way to remove us from the difficulties that have ensued since the 1911 Parliament Act.

Yours Faithfully,


Elisabeth Beckett

Comments (1)

Can any tell me what 7 acts were refused Royal Assent since 1707?

I am really interested as I was taught at school that the Monarch had to sign all laws sent from parliament, and that failure to do so would result in either civil war or immediate disbandenment of the Monarchy.

I have tried Wikipedia already - no luck. They state that Royal Assent has not been denied since 1707.

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