FAO Supreme Court Judges:
The Royal prerogative goes back through history to Alfred the Great, the first King of the English. Our forefathers laid down rules by which the King could rule us.
The rules regarding the Royal Prerogative are very straightforward. They comprise two things:
(1) the Royal Prerogative lies exclusively in the hands of the King, and allows the King to do anything which benefits the Kingdom and his subjects. If the exercise of the Royal Prerogative harms even the lowliest of the King’s subjects the exercise of the prerogative is illegal.
(2) The King cannot give or lend the prerogative to anyone or anything else.
Therefore the use of the Royal Prerogative by ministers is clearly illegal under English Common Law which lays down the rules our Kings must rule us in conformity with. The claim that the 1689 Bill of Rights transferred authority from the Crown to Parliament in the form of the elected house, this is simply not true: the restrictions mentioned are only repeating those things which England’s Kings, which we can trace back to the restrictions which Alfred the Great has placed upon himself.
Further to this on the 8th March 1784. following a 20 year running fight between King George III and the elected house as to where total authority lay, with the lawfully anointed King or the elected House, and after a speech by Pitt the younger in which he asked the question ‘is it better to be ruled by 1 despot or by 350 despots who can never agree’, the King won the vote, so by both Common Law and by Parliamentary vote Queen Elizabeth II is the supreme governor of England from where all her other titles. privileges and superiorities flow.
The Court is being asked a question which assumes Queen Elizabeth II is a fool and has allowed herself to be conned by her Prime Minister. So far in her Reign she has done nothing to indicate that she is a foolish Queen – quite the reverse in fact. You are being asked to believe that Queen Elizabeth II does not know her subjects voted with a large margin to leave the European Union and that Parliament has spent 3 years trying by foul means to thwart our leaving and returning her Kingdom back to her exclusive rule.
The proroguing of Parliament is a Royal Prerogative and her Majesty has exercised that prerogative power fully in support of her subjects’ vote to return her Kingdom to her exclusive rule. For any of her subjects from the lowest as in Gina Miller to the highest in Parliament or the Courts to challenge the absolute legal right of Queen Elizabeth II to prorogue Parliament for the best reasons or just because she thinks she will, means that Gina Miller, politicians or Judges – no matter how mighty they are – are placing their will above her Majesty’s will, and that constitutes high treason by imagining the abolition of her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II as a fully sovereign Queen, as dictated by the Common Law of Kingship and by Parliamentary vote on the 8th March 1784. It contravenes the 1351 Treason Act.
I respectfully submit that all the legal argument cannot change the fact that Queen Elizabeth II as our supreme governor must be assumed to be mentally competent to make up her own mind if and when she exercises any of her Royal Prerogatives. With that in mind, it matters not what the Prime Minister was thinking. The exercising by Queen Elizabeth II of her absolute right to prorogue Parliament cannot be challenged without committing high treason against her Majesty’s person.
The sovereignty of Parliament is a myth put out by the likes of Dicey. Every one sitting in either house is there as advisors to the sovereign, in our case Queen Elizabeth II. Parliament can only truly claim sovereignty when the lawfully anointed sovereign is present in their person and even then Parliament is only sovereign because of the actual presence of the King/Queen in the Palace of Westminster.
I have not filled this submission with ‘he said she said’, like the Barristers before you who are over complicating a simple fact. Queen Elizabeth II as our lawfully anointed Queen can prorogue Parliament as and when she feels like it.