Frank correspondence with The Queen and the Head of Constitutional Policy
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
Winchester S021 2BL
16 February 2009
Her Majesty The Queen
London SW1A 1AA
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.
David F. Abbott
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