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

Blog Home | All Posts

Frank correspondence with The Queen and the Head of Constitutional Policy

f_coronation_elizabeth_balc.jpg

The Queen at Buckingham Palace, shortly after being crowned.
Image: Old UK Photos

It must be clear to almost everyone that Britain is in dire straits.

Under the British Constitution we are supposed to have a Sovereign who checks the power of an arrogantly misguided Parliament and defends our liberties and laws under the British Constitution.

Instead we are told that the Sovereign has no constitutional responsibility to prevent Parliament from signing up to an unconstitutional treaty that will place Britain under foreign domination.

Last year I wrote to The Queen, whose life-long covenant with the British people under the British Constitution is to defend the people's liberties, laws and customs. A series of letters resulted, with the Ministry of Justice (MOJ) contributing their misinformed views of the British Constitution and the role of The Queen.

In late January I received another letter, this time from the MOJ's Eirian Walsh Atkins, Head of Constitutional Policy, correcting the first MOJ letter and making one momentous constitutional admission - the Bill of Rights and Act of Settlement are written parts of the British Constitution.

What Ms Atkins failed to note was also significant. And, to my astonishment, Ms Atkins made completely erroneous statements about The Queen's constitutional role.

That letter appears in the continuation of this post.

On the 16th of February I responded bluntly to The Queen, quoting Ms Atkins and laying out the implications for the Monarchy and Britain. I reiterated my original and still unanswered questions. My letter follows. I have inserted red subheads for those who prefer an overview -

DAVID F. ABBOTT MD MRCP

Kingsmere Meadow

Shawford

Winchester S021 2BL

01962 714413

16 February 2009

Her Majesty The Queen

Buckingham Palace

London SW1A 1AA

Madam,

I wrote to Your Majesty on 8 December about serious Constitutional issues.

At Your Majesty's request, Mrs Bonici forwarded my letter to the Ministry of Justice. The response of the Ministry of Justice concerns me greatly. It appears that the Ministry of Justice neither comprehends the British Constitution nor Your Majesty's Constitutional role.

Head of Constitutional Policy admits that parts of British Constitution are written

On 27 January 2009, I received a reply from Ms Eirian Walsh Atkins who is the Head of Constitutional Policy. She stated: "You are right to point out that parts of the British Constitution are written and we can confirm that statutes that you mention such as the Bill of Rights 1688/9 and Act of Settlement 1701 are some of the many statutes that make up our uncodified constitution".

Ms Atkins failed to mention either the Coronation Oath or Magna Carta as written parts of our Constitution. Some people have forgotten the significance of the Coronation Oath and Magna Carta, but we should not like to think that the Head of Constitutional Policy is one of them.

Your Majesty will understand that the Coronation Oath and Magna Carta were not originally parliamentary statutes, so Parliament may be inclined to overlook them. However, their Constitutional significance has been recognised for centuries.

Constitutional significance of the Coronation according to 2nd Baron Wakehurst

Your Majesty's Coronation was a momentous occasion for all your people. I can still vividly remember watching Your Majesty on television. Recently I was reminded of that day by the film Long to Reign Over Us, which is currently available on the Royal Channel. There John de Vere Loder, 2nd Baron Wakehurst, KG, GCMG, describes the constitutional importance of the Coronation:

"When She is anointed with the consecrated oil, when She takes into her hands the orb, the sceptre, and all the other symbols of royalty, such as the sword, the bracelets, the spurs, and when homage is paid in the form prescribed by the traditions of a thousand years, Her people are pledging themselves on their part to honour the Sovereignty of the nation in Her person and to work with Her in maintaining the Constitution that She has taken her oath to support".

Indispensable Magna Carta

The Constitution that Your Majesty swore to support before God in covenant with your people includes Magna Carta. Winston Churchill wrote about our Great Charter: "In subsequent ages when the state swollen with its own authority has attempted to ride roughshod over the rights and liberties of the people it is to this doctrine that appeal has again and again been made and never as yet without success".

The Americans, who borrowed much from our own dear Constitution, call Magna Carta the foundation of the US Constitution and of their liberty. There are many reasons for this, but one reason in particular: The right to trial by jury and the jury's right to return a not guilty verdict even if it runs counter to statute law is a bulwark against tyranny. The people have the power to decide that a law is unjust, as they did in the famous case of William Penn in 1670. Consequently the power of the state is limited and statute law cannot become despotic. This is one of the Constitutional mechanisms that have defended our liberty for nearly one thousand years.

EU's Corpus Juris eliminates our essential rights and protections

It is a grave concern that the European Union intends that all member states will follow Corpus Juris, a system that eliminates all the protections of Magna Carta. Retired magistrate David Rowlands writes that few people, in particular members of Parliament, have read this code (Corpus Juris, ISBN 27178/33447). He has done his homework and points out: "Your rights, held since Magna Carta, to be judged by your peers have been eliminated. Lay magistracy has been exterminated. The genius of our Common Law, which involves the community in administering criminal justice at first instance through the magistrates and later through the jury, has been deliberately destroyed."

Lisbon Treaty means 'whatever we want it to mean'

Corpus Juris and Magna Carta cannot be reconciled. The Lisbon Treaty is a treaty written to be "self-amending". It can be expanded. It can be changed to mean whatever governments in future would like it to mean.

Lisbon Treaty cannot be reconciled with Bill of Rights

It cannot be reconciled with the Bill of Rights (1689), which Ms Atkins affirmed is a written part of our Constitution. The Bill of Rights declares: "That no foreign prince, person, prelate, state, or potentate hath, or ought to have, any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence, or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm."

In short, giving any foreign body authority over the British people is unconstitutional. Ms Atkins wrote that ". . .rules made by external bodies, for example under international law, cannot override Acts of Parliament". But the European Union is an external body, and in future the Lisbon Treaty will allow the EU to override acts of Parliament.

How could this happen?

Your Majesty may well wonder how this is possible. How could such a conflict with our Constitution have been overlooked? One answer is suggested by the present financial crisis: Many critical things have been overlooked by Your Majesty's Ministers.

How was that it that Royal Assent was given to an act that ought to have been rejected as incompatible with the British Constitution? Because ministers erroneously claimed that the Lisbon Treaty does not do what it says it will do; and falsely asserted that the Sovereign is obligated to give Royal Assent to everything that Parliament demands.

Parliament claims that the Sovereign's solemnly sworn duty to defend the laws and customs of Her people does not require Her to defend the people from unconstitutional acts of Parliament. But that is to hold the Sovereign’s sworn oath in contempt.

Refusing Royal Assent is a constitutional responsibility, as history shows

An assent implies the possibility of a refusal. Some monarchs have been fortunate because their Parliaments have not presented them with unconstitutional Acts. However, historians tell us that Edward VII threatened to withhold Royal Assent from what became after his death the 1911 Parliament Act and that in Canada Royal Assent was withheld in 1936 and in 1937 from bills of doubtful constitutionality.

The Crown in Parliament is sovereign. The necessity of an executive to balance the power of the legislature is clear in the British Constitution. Indeed, according to the BBC, "The Act of Settlement, 1701, was introduced in the reign of William III, to provide for a stable executive branch to the British government". The executive to whom the BBC refers is the Sovereign.

The Act of Settlement is part of the British Constitution - The Sovereign must administer the Government according to the laws that are the birthright of the people

Ms Atkins agrees that the Act of Settlement is a written part of our Constitution. The Act specifically states: "And whereas the Laws of England are the Birthright of the People thereof and all the Kings and Queens who shall ascend the Throne of this Realm ought to administer the Government of the same according to the said Laws and all their Officers and Ministers ought to serve them respectively according to the same, The said Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Commons do therefore further humbly pray That all the Laws and Statutes of this Realm for securing the established Religion and the Rights and Liberties of the People thereof and all other Laws and Statutes of the same now in Force may be ratified and confirmed."

The Sovereign's responsibility for the Constitutions of the Dominions

Under our Constitution the Sovereign has important administrative responsibilities to ensure that the Constitution is defended. Indeed Your Majesty has an important role in defending the Constitutions of the Dominions, as was evidenced in 1975 when Your Majesty’s Governor-General resolved what has been called the greatest political and constitutional crisis in Australia's history. Yet Ms Atkins wrote that Your Majesty's "executive role has inevitably diminished".

Who reduced the Sovereign's executive role?

I am astonished. On what date did Your Majesty's executive role diminish? Under what Constitutional articles?

These are the very questions that I asked in my letter of December 8th. I have yet to receive an answer from Your Majesty or from Your Majesty's Government.

Your Majesty is bound by oath sworn before God and people to defend British laws and liberties

I respectfully submit that the British Constitution is under threat and that Your Majesty is bound by oath sworn before God and people to defend it. Will Your Majesty publicly advise Your Majesty's ministers that Parliament should repeal the Lisbon Treaty?

Such an action on your part would enjoy the strongest support of the great majority of your people.

Yours sincerely,


David F. Abbott
http://www.britsattheirbest.com/


Copies:

HRH The Prince of Wales

HRH The Princess Royal
HRH Prince William
HRH Prince Henry
The Most Rev. and the Rt Hon. The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury

f_queen_moj_atkins_1.jpgf_queen_moj_atkins_2.jpg


Comments (9)

Excellent. Saving this for future ref.

harry beckhough:

most interested, please keep me informed. Will send my "Germany's Fourth Reich" in return. Harry of MRG Marlborough.

A Betts:

Since 1948 successive UK governments have trampled underfoot the primary function of democratic government – that is to represent & protect the sovereignty, inaliable constitutional rights, priveleges & interests of the overwhelming majority of native Britons.

The Monarch should have a written CONSTITUTIONAL right to examine & overturn, where approved in a national referendum, the non-constitutional actions of British (non) governments.

A Betts:

As Dickens showed in "Bleak House" lawyers are a bunch of money-grabbing scavengers.

If top lawyers at MoJ cannot get it right, then they are getting money under false pretences, which is criminal in more ways than one.

No wonder they call the law a profession! I suppose gangsters also call their occupations a profession.

Withheld:

Excellent, David, quite excellent. Keep it going.

One or two points/observations:

1 Yes, as the reply to you states, Parliament is indeed sovereign but
Parliament comprises 'the Queen in Parliament'. Your respondent should have made this clear.

2 Your respondent states the Queen cannot make or pass legislation. That is to state the obvious. But she can withhold her assent and thereby prevent
unconstitutional legislation. That is key to her role.

3 The Bill of Rights was merely a legislative endorsement of the Delaration of Rights which, like Magna Carta, was a compact with the people. That compact cannot be broken and is extra parliamentary in nature.

Kind rgds,
A

James D. Haeberle:

If our American President still has the power to "veto" ("I forbid" in the parlance of Roman Tribunes) then surely the consitutional monarch of the United Kingdom of Great Britain still retains that same power. There has been far too much talk in recent years about demolishing your form of government, based on the false belief that the monarch has no real governmental function. Here is a prime example of a function she most assuredly does have and which is needed for the protection of all Britons. I believe that if Her Majesty were to step forward boldly and execise that power, no detractor or combination of detractors could successfully challenge her, and her power and status would be re-established. May she have the wisdom and nerve to do just that!

James D. Haeberle
Chubbuck, Idaho
USA

Piers A. Wilson:

Although I am outraged, I am sadly not surprised. Recently I've been devastated at the level of ignorance people and especially the media have about the Monarchy, but they are all too ready to listen to politicians and lawyers and accountants selfishly grabbing at the heights of power.

I'm only 19 and yet for a long time even I have understood that the day these people gain full control is the day Britain in every way is lost becoming nothing but an ever fading memory, thus I would have no country to believe in, no pride for it, nothing but distain.

In my eyes the Monarch is at a 'T' junction whereby she could turn one way and sovereignty is lost forever, or she can turn the other way and rather than carry on hoping to seem politically impartial, fight for her right, for her people and for the constitutional laws of this country, after all the fight is against parliament in general.

There is no option now to sit back and do nothing.

When I say fight I do not explicitly mean to be an opposite force against parliament, rather to put them in their place and push a completely written constitution so that everyone will recognise the role of the Monarch.

I would personally like to see the crown have further powers over parliament, but Her Majesty first needs to recognise the great power she already possesses and use it, if not for herself for the vast majority of the British public that love the Monarchy.

Doug Harrison:

Regarding the (British) Ministry of Justice letter to Mr. Abbott, par. 2

“The legal premise of the United Kingdom – that the UK Parliament is sovereign –is a fundamental part of our constitutional arrangements. This means the Acts of Parliament must be obeyed by the courts, that later acts prevail over earlier ones, and that the rule made by external bodies, for example international law, cannot override Acts of Parliament. It may be said that Parliament is sovereign as it holds sovereignty on behalf of the people it represents, it is a body to which the people and their representatives to make decisions on their behalf, and so decisions by Parliament are binding. For a Monarch to intervene an any political matter would not be consistent with those democratic principles and Her Majesty’s status as a Constitutional Monarch.” EQ

COMMENTS :

1. “legal premise” – this is indeed some legal claim re Parliamentary sovereignty. But how is it a ‘constitutional claim’? Despite the official sanction of a new Monarch a la the Bill of Rights 1689, the new monarch must be acceptable to people, and so before the Coronation ceremony begins, the Archbishop asks of the witnesses attending in Westminster Abbey whether the new Monarch is indeed acceptable? Only if there is no dissent, may the ceremony begin. The constitutional claim of the people supersedes any parliamentary say so, which say so is in affect advice that QE II was acceptable – but only advice. An person may dispute Her claim.

The British Parliament may have a constitutional say, when in the instance of Q Anne having no living heirs, G I was accepted, based upon constitutional principles.

2. Where is “fundamental part of our constitutional arrangements”. Once again the Coronation Oath is about a personal Oath of QE II to each and every subject. Now, each member of parliament, and each Minster of the Crown are Her subjects. As such it is a logical absurdity that these people, and any other subjects besides, can tell the Sovereign what She can or cannot do. If this was or is so, then a constitutional Monarchy is an absurdity in itself.

Such temerity in times past had seen men & women sent to the Tower of London, and quite a few lost their heads!

3. re “Acts of Parliament must be obeyed by the courts”. Under Common Law and trial by jury, this is a treasonous lie. The olden Coronation Oath say the Monarch will ‘ maintain the common law and customs of the people that they have so chosen’. It is taken that the Monarch can alter the (common) law so as to make them better.

Yes, the people ought to obey the common law, but laws even if assented to by the Monarch may be denied by a jury if it be against the common law and custom i.e. it is NOT better, is unjust, or defies common sense (see Lord Coke).

A Monarch who continually assents to bad laws e.g. King John, Charles I, James II have nasty things occur. Some just die, and future Monarchs rectify their ills.

4. “It may be said that Parliament is sovereign as it holds sovereignty on behalf of the people it represents, it is a body to which the people and their representatives to make decisions on their behalf, and so decisions by Parliament are binding.” EQ In terms of common law this is pure fiction and rubbish -- it is truly one of their “legal arrangements”.

Sovereignty belongs to the Sovereign, and those who claim sovereignty to themselves are committing TREASON.

5. “For a Monarch to intervene in any political matter would not be consistent with those democratic principles and Her Majesty’s status as a Constitutional Monarch.” EQ This is NOT A POLITICAL matter, but one between our Sovereign QE II and each and any subject, and the collective the people of UK.

And how is “not consistent with those democratic principles”. What ‘democratic principles’? This is B.S.!

And why shouldn’t a Sovereign intervene? For any subject to deny Her that power is TREASON!

QE II is the supreme ruler, FULL STOP. If you chose otherwise, you must alter the whole of governance of the nation, but only with the informed consent of the people of the UK.

At present, this would amount to HIGH TREASON without the people’s informed consent. The present British Parliament and Ministers of the Crown can rightly be accused of HIGH TREASON.

Doug Harrison, Victoria, Australia

Withheld:

Hold on just a moment here...

You seem to be assuming Parliament does not involve the Queen: the Queen is part of Parliament, and it is that entity: 'the Queen in Parliament under God' to give a full name, which is sovereign in the UK, not just the Queen and not just the combination of Lords and Commons.

[Note from Cat: This letter was published below a January post. Due to its interest we've added it here.]

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