WILLIAM III
Written by Bob Lomas
In this, the beginning of the twenty-first century the people of the once United Kingdom of Great Britain find themselves disenfranchised, a nation deceived and betrayed. Robbed of their lawful birth right to be an independent sovereign self governing people of self political determination. The British people find themselves a nation undone, victims of political and social evolution and as such exposed to the predations of political self seeking opportunists within their political structure, in turn supported by traditional foreign enemies with vulturous intent.
The constitutional system that afforded the nation social protection and stability, expressed in the principles of the Magna Carta 1215 and the Bill of Rights 1689, that enshrined all that the nation was for nearly a thousand years is no more and arguably cannot nor could not be restructured in the modern world excellent though it was. The fact that it was so easily overturned as the demands of social evolutionary expansion prised open the cracks of age and so exposed the vulnerability of principles founded in times of comparative social isolation, prove the essential need to adapt changing political circumstances and social aspirations.
All social structures need a leader to referee and coordinate the social aspirations of the mass within the rules and laws agreed on. Our ancient system of monarchy worked well but often proved vulnerable when weak and/or dishonest monarchs allowed themselves to be influenced by foreign powers, in particular the Church of Rome, to the potential detriment and security of their subjects. In 1640 such an instance resulted in civil war. The offending King Charles 1st was executed and the nation became a Commonwealth under the protection of Oliver Cromwell. Twelve years later Cromwell was dead and another King, Charles II, was crowned and the nation returned to being a monarchy. Charles II was succeeded by James II who also treasonously leaned to the Church of Rome and was deposed in the Glorious Revolution of 1688.
It was time to sort matters out. A declaration of Right was drawn up and Protestants William and Mary of Orange were offered the Crown providing they agreed to abide by the rules and conditions laid down by the state and clarified in the Coronation Oath Act 1688 and the Bill of Rights 1689. There would be no more rule by divine right and no more official reigning. The Monarch would be the official Governor of the nation and Head of the Executive, much the same as a president. The hereditary system of Royal ascent would be kept in order to prevent it being bought into or politically taken over. The coronation would be both an election and a wedding between the people and the Monarch. The Monarch would wear a ring proclaiming the marriage and swear to govern the people according to their laws and customs.Thus the people would be the Monarch and the Monarch the people. The Monarch would mount a Parliament on the people’s behalf and delegate the authority of governance to a political party of the people’s choice for a strictly limited period, but not the power of governance which would remain with the Monarch and so the people, thus through the Monarch the people would maintain control over their own Parliament.
To establish that Parliament was no more than a temporarily appointed administration and legislature without any powers of its own whatsoever, all parliamentarians would swear an oath of allegiance to the Monarch and through the monarch to the people. At the time of the coronation the people would vest in the Monarch enormous Royal prerogative powers to prevent a Parliament from becoming despotic, including the power to dismiss all ministers and dissolve Parliament at any time during its short life. The Monarch would also be made Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces to ensure any action the Monarch might need to take to overpower a despotic Parliament could be taken unopposed, and to ensure this, all members of the Armed Forces would take an oath of allegiance to the Monarch and so to the people. For obvious reasons Parliament therefore would have no authority or control over the Armed Forces.
By and large for the next 230 years all went well. The succeeding Monarchs upheld their coronation oaths, the Constitution and the people’s laws. George III was particularly strict in refusing Royal assent to Bills that he deemed to be unconstitutional, such as Prime Minister Pitt’s Catholic Emancipation Bill. Queen Victoria would simply put such Bills on one side and forget about them. Edward VII monitored all Bills closely and strongly refused to give his Royal assent to Bills when in his opinion it was warranted, but he was the last British Monarch to do so. Edward VII was succeeded by his son George V, seemingly of weak character and not over bright. Liberal Prime Minister Asquith, a recognised Fabian Socialist, did by means of a lie persuade George V that the Coronation Oath and Royal prerogative powers invested in him by the people, including the power of Royal assent to parliamentary Bills, had become by convention no longer valid and no more than traditional formality, despite convention having no force in law.
At that time the Monarchy had become so distanced from the people George V did not understand his position as Head of the Executive or that he was no more than custodian of the powers vested in him by the people for his lifetime, after which they would return to the people to be once more vested in the succeeding Monarch. By surrendering to Parliament powers that were not in his gift George V effectively not only abdicated but ended the Monarchy, as from then on the Monarchy and so the people themselves became no more than a traditional appendage without power or influence over Parliament. The Constitutional British Monarchy had been, by political deceit and treason, reduced to no more than the ineffective monarchies of Europe and the British people no longer had a national leader.
Photo by Lichfield District Council 
I am with you Bob. I recently had a letter from the House of Lords Office which slightly gainsays., It states that no Monarch has given personal assent to legislation since 1854. i.e Victoria.and what happens is that the Queen has delegated Her function of Royal Assent to a bunch of Lords Commissioners.who do it for Her. This explains why our Common Law right to Petition the Monarch In 1972 to stop Heath was ignored. Traitors in the Lords did the Assenting and our petitition of 1/2m signatures was worthless. My message to all your readers is: what are YOU going to do about it?
Now, of course, others have mentioned the power of party leaders. This is where the corrupt Bill of Rights comes in. (See Kenn D;oudney’s article on the same). If your readers wan the whole sorry story then try john.cruttwell@sfr.fr for info but may I say to Bob and others the following( in my text. The historian Sir Lewis Namier explained in a public lecture in1952.that the Monarch lost the power to appoint Ministers fo the Crown by prerogative when highly disciplined political parties came into existence) (see also The British Constitution and the eCorruption of Parliament by Ben Greene) (Amazon) because if the party managers decided who could be MPs the MPs had to toe the line and THEY appointed Ministers of the Crown, not the Monarch. the CRUCIAL separation of powers was destroyed and any appeal to the Monahhc became worthless. .
So, until we stop voting for parties and make sure appointment of Ministers really does go back to the Crown, that charade will continue.
Martin Cruttwell
Thank you Bob for an excellent article !
It boils down to the very character of the British people, and what they are prepared to accept !
If we are attacked in war, we can be counted on to respond in like manner, and to gain victory over an enemy !
Should we have historic sovereignty taken by ‘Johnny Foreigner’, then it is odds on that we will vote against continuation of that !
Quiet, internal adjustment to our historic rights can pass without fuss, as such adjustments are not understood by most British folk !
We can be counted on to elect a Party. – Voting for the individual becomes secondary to a Party’s logo !
As we have recently seen, some of our ‘Representatives’ are nothing of the sort. – Just numbers to back a Party, or themselves !
True control by the people via an elected and replaceable executive, is an ideal that might never be experienced !
Handing the Crown power over Parliament may never happen, due to the problem with Charles l. – Not to be repeated !
We have another Charlie in the wings, but as head of the C of E, do they want an adulterer as their head, along with his second wife ? –
– add to that Charlie’s wish to be Defender of (all) Faiths. – Is The Church so weak now, as to go along with that ?
If the C of E accepts this, the Monarch will truly become a tourist attraction, of real financial National benefit, but that will be all !
The British Commonwealth, so well supported by our Queen, may have views upon this change. – It could be expected !
Erudite and concise. Thank you, Bob Lomas. Will part 2 introduce the lawful place of Common Law Trial by Jury and Nullification by Jury, as provided by Magna Carta 1215 and identify the illegal structures in parliament and courts that do their utmost to deprive us of those rights which go all the way back to King John? I hope so.
PS. Every every leader knows instinctively
Grannies rules.
Divide and Rule
and for a guild to the corrupt
No man can serve two masters.
Whatever power politics actually has , is vested in the Prime Minister. And every prime minister, even including the subversive and criminal Blair, is correctly terrified of the people. The people and the crown are aware of the rather unstable present position However there are quite a lot of barriers between Politics and ultimate, as opposed to its law making power. For example. is not the Queen head of
House of Lords, Law Lords, Church ( Probably why May and other nasty pieces of work , encourage Islam,), Civil Service,, Treasury., etc
Politicians have for centuries understood the Tie between wages and appointments and loyalty . And thus one step at a time etc corruption of these institutions. And have over the centuries managed to undermine the links between the Treasurey, Army, Law and no doubt others.
. The Civil service understands this.and in its way is a friend of the people although looking for power for itself of course.
Politics is inherently.and at every stage corrupt and destructive.. Despite the enormous volume of crap put up.
The Queen has never felt powerful enough ( For whatever reason ) to block these subtle but corrupt manoeuvres . To the extent that the Monarchy is threatened. Not least because Charles has been a Media Target from socialism and fools.all his life. In spite of showing more sense than them..