The true 'Duty' of the Reigning Monarch of England...

THE, “ORIGINAL CONTRACT”

The existing, yet unwritten contract, betwixt King and People fully entrenched and established in, English, LAW.

In a vote taken by the House of Commons on the 28^th day of January 1688 the Commons determined and declared that King James the Second had “Broken the Original Contract betwixt King and People” and that thereby he had abdicated the throne. The, Commons declared, the throne was vacant.

In February 1688, there then followed a “Special Free Conference” held in the Painted Chamber of the Commons entitled, “The Debate at Large”.

 This conference was between both, Lords and Commons, to debate the words, “ABDICATED” and, “VACANCY OF THE THRONE”.   

 

These excerpts from the "Speeches” of this conference”, fully establishes the true existence and the legal validity of the "Original Contract", in English Law.

 

The “Original Contract” is founded upon the principle that, “Allegiance is given to the Liege Lord for the protection of the Liege Lord”.

 

This is what HENRY POWLE, ‘The Speaker’ of that CONVENTION (Parliament), said in that debate. He is referring to King James the Second, breaking this contract and abdicating the throne:

 

“ It is from those that are upon the Throne of England (when there are any such) from whom the People of England ought to receive Protection; and to whom, for that Cause, they owe the Allegiance of Subjects; but there being none now from whom they expect Regal Protection, and to whom, for that Cause they owe the Allegiance of Subjects, the Commons conceive, The Throne is Vacant."

 

Here, Sir George Treby, is explaining in his speech why, KING JAMES the Second, had "broken the original contract" and, why he had abdicated the throne.

 

 

Sir George Treby

“He hath Abdicated and Renounced the Government; for all other particular Breaches of Law, the Subject may have Remedy in the ordinary Courts of Justice, or the extraordinary Court of Parliamentary Proceedings : But where such an Attempt as this is made on the "Essence of the Constitution", it is not we that have brought ourselves into this state of Nature, but Those who have reduced our Legal well-established Frame of Government into such a state of Confusion, as we are now seeking a Redress unto."

No more needs be said; 

The ‘Commons’ vote of 28^th January 1688, declared this:

 

Resolved, That King James the Second, having endeavoured to subvert the Constitution of the Kingdom, breaking the original Contract between King and People, and, by the advice of Jesuits, and other wicked Persons, having violated the fundamental Laws, and having withdrawn himself out of this Kingdom, has abdicated the Government, and that the Throne is thereby vacant.

 

And, the ‘Lords’ vote of 7^th February 1688; in a message sent to the ‘Commons’ by Sir Robert Atkins and Sir Edward Nevill, further declared,

“Mr. Speaker, The Lords have Commanded us to tell you, That they have agreed to the Vote sent them up of the 28^th of January last, (touching which there was a free Conference yesterday) without any Alterations.”

By these votes of both Commons and Lords, the existence of the ‘Original Contract’ betwixt Monarch and Subject, is fully established in English Law.

With respect to Monarchy’s position with regard to “Constitutional Monarchy” and how Monarchy’s responsibilities are affected in respect to the “Original Contract”; particular attention should be noted as to what the Earl of Clarendon says in this ‘Convention’ debate:

Lord Clarendon

“Irrespective of that analysis of the Law from the standpoint of the Divine Right of Kings upholding the Lineal Descent and its Authority: “The protection of the Subject” would be as binding on the Successor, as it was, on the Deposed. And if the Successor “Breached the Contract” as well; he also could be deposed.”

Monarchy failed to understand that; or, simply did not care about that; when it breached the “Original Contract” and became a “Constitutional Monarchy”.

Note: There are two very important things to properly understand about the actual creation of, Constitutional Monarchy; and, the, “Original Contract”.

1.     As will already have been seen above the “Original Contract” provides the ‘protection of the people’, and,

2.     Constitutional Monarchy, takes that, ‘protection of the people’, away.

CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHY did not just evolve. It was specifically created by both Monarchy and Parliament. Prior to its creation all, “Subjects of the Crown”, were entitled to the ‘protection’ of the “Original Contract” which protected them from the tyranny of the abuses and prejudice of parliament.

Yet, when both Monarchy and Parliament, entered into the conspiracy, to create “Constitutional Monarchy”; it was assumed by both the Monarchy and Parliament; that the Monarchy was then relieved from the responsibility of honouring “Original Contract”, (Which required the protection of the people). But, both Parliament and the Monarchy had assumed that, incorrectly:

To the contrary, the essential criterion here is this, that, parliament had no rightful power at all, to overrule, supplant, or abolish the “Original Contract”; or, to take this, ‘protection of the people’, away. Parliament had no ‘legality’ whatsoever to amend or interfere with the, “Original Contract”, in any way.

The “Bill of Rights 1689”, in the paragraph, “The Said Rights Claimed”; prevents parliament from the ‘prejudice of the people’. Parliament, removing or interfering, with the “Original Contract”, in any way; which does provide for the ‘protection of the people’; flouts and breaches, “The Said Rights Claimed”. Because, removing this, ‘protection of the people’, this does, “Prejudice the People”

CONCLUSION: Every “Reigning Monarch” that sits upon the English throne is therefore, always bound to honour and to comply with the “Original Contract” protecting all “Subjects of the Crown”; irrespective of any present, arrangements, for “Constitutional Monarchy”. For, as long as a “Reigning Monarch” sits upon that English throne; they will always be required to honour the “Original Contract”, requiring, the ‘protection of the people’.

ELIZABETH THE SECOND has not ‘honoured’ that “Original Contract” once, in all the sixty years she has sat upon that throne. She has repeatedly granted the "Royal Assent" to Bills and Acts that have been passed by parliament, under the influence of the political party WHIPS; and, the WHIPS in parliament, has no legality at all.

The WHIPS instructing 'elected' Members of Parliament on they must or should vote, is entirely unlawful, creating the 'prejudice of the people', thereby, flouting and breaching the, "Statute in Force/Bill of Rights 1689/The Said Rights Claimed"

 It is my contention, for the reasons, as set out above, that, “Constitutional Monarchy’, does not relieve or excuse the ‘Reigning Monarch’ of England from ‘honouring’ the “Original Contract” and, protecting the people. Therefore, when, ELIZABETH THE SECOND, fails to protect her ‘Subjects’ in this way, she fails to carry out her duty. Thereby, she ‘Abdicates’, the throne.

The ‘Reigning Monarch’ is provided with two ‘legal instruments’ in order to assist in carrying out that role. They, are, ‘The Royal Assent’ and ‘The Royal Prerogative’. And, they have both been specifically designed, for the ‘protection of the people’.

Read my book "DEMOCRACY" available here: http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1500465984

THE BRITISH MONARCHY

   The Official Website of,

 The British Monarchy

 Every Bill or Act passed by parliament before it can become ‘LAW’, it has to be awarded the consent of the ‘Reigning Monarch’ by the granting of, “The Royal Assent”.

 

I telephoned ‘Buckingham Palace’ and I spoke to Her Majesties Private Secretary and I asked her just how many times had ELIZABETH THE SECOND granted the ‘Royal Assent’ and, for which each, ‘Bill’ or ‘Act’, had it been granted for.

 

To my utter amazement she told me that she was unable to provide that information and she instructed me to get that information from government. But, she could not advise which department of government I should contact.

 

This demonstrates the entire negligence and arrogance of Monarchy and the ‘despotism’ surrounding the administration of Monarchy we have in the country today. The Queen grants the ‘Royal Assent’; her private secretary should know each time what it had been granted for. But, Monarchy treats ‘The Common People” with sheer contempt.

 

This private secretary of the Queen then told me that she would send me a copy of relevant information about “The British Monarchy” that might help me to properly understand the Queen’s role in respect to parliament.

In due course this letter arrived. It provided an excerpt from a series of documents published on the “Official Website”, of the British Monarchy. And, interestingly, it listed the series of items covered in respect to the Queen on that website. I list them here as follows:

 

The Queen and the UK

The Role of the Monarchy

Queen and Government

The Queen in Parliament

Queen and Prime Minister

Queen and Scottish Parliament

Queen and Welsh Assembly

Queen and Privy Council

Counsellors of State

Queen and voting.

Queen and the Law

Queen and the Church

Queen and the Armed Forces

Queen and Crown Dependencies

Queen and Honours

Queen and Royal Visits

Prizes and Awards

Symbols of the Monarchy

 

The astute reader of this feature will instantly recognise the very grave omission in this listing. Where are, “The People”?

 

Where is the listing?

 

Queen and the People?

 

Here, on this entire official website of the British Monarchy,

We, the common people of this land, have not been considered at all.

 

This is how Monarchy and the ‘Reigning Monarch’ treat, ‘The People’, today.

 

Both Monarchy and Government; and, the entire ‘Establishment’ of the country; wholly proceeds as though the Monarchy still possesses, “The Divine Right of Kings” ; completely ignoring or forgetting that, this travesty, came to its end when, King Charles the First, had his head cut off. Today, although, the ‘common people’, are held by law in ‘imposed’ subjugation to the ‘Reigning Monarch; the ‘Reigning Monarch’ only reigns, by the consent of the people. There is now no longer, “The Divine Right of Kings”.

 

When the CONVENTION (Parliament) of 1688 removed King James the Second from the throne for, “Breaking the Original Contract betwixt King and People”; in respect to the ‘Lineal Descent’ of the future Kings and Queen’s that would sit upon the throne; this CONVENTION ruled and determined, that,

 

“The contract is as binding upon the Successor as well as it was on the Deposed if the Successor broke the contract he too can be Deposed”.

 

Therefore, and thereby, the ‘Reigning Monarch’ today is still bound by the “Original Contract”; the actual ‘precedent of law’ established by the CONVENTION (Parliament) of 1688. This, established the principle, that, “Allegiance is given to the Liege Lord for the protection of the Liege Lord”.

 

The ‘Reigning Monarch’ of England, has no other ‘legality’, for occupying the ‘English’ throne. It is, ‘The People’s Consent”, that provides the ‘Reigning Monarch’ with the legal right to rule; in return, for the ‘protection of the people’. That, the ‘Reigning Monarch’, is obliged to give.

 

The ‘Reigning Monarch’ of England is required by law, to act as ‘Head of Government’; and, to monitor parliament; in the interests of the ‘Crown’s Subjects’. In order to verify, that the ‘Laws’ and ‘Bills’ passed by parliament have been created and passed without corruption. Providing, the ‘Royal Assent’, if they are without corruption; refusing the ‘Assent’, if they are corrupt.

 

It is interesting to note that the last time the ‘Royal Assent’ was refused to be granted by a ‘Reigning Monarch’ to the legislation that had been passed by parliament was on the, 11^th March 1708; when Queen Anne refused to grant it to a Bill for the “Settlement of the Militia in Scotland”.

 

 Ever since that date, every ‘Reigning Monarch’ that has sat upon the English throne, has merely acted in like manner to a village sub-postmaster or sub-postmistress, franking and rubber stamping every piece of paper laid before them by parliament.

Yet, a great deal of that ‘legislation’ of parliament; had been passed by parliament, ‘under the influence’ of the political party WHIPS; and, the WHIPS in parliament; has no legality at all. The WHIPS in parliament instruct Members of Parliament on how they must vote. This overrules and supplants all ‘rightful influence’ the Constituents might have placed upon those Members of Parliament. Thereby, the WHIPS “prejudice the people”.

 

This flouts and breaches the ‘precedent of law’ set out and established in the, “Statute in Force/Bill of Rights 1689/The Said Rights Claimed”.

Which specifically instructs parliament that, when parliament enacts or applies any of the “Premises” of that Bill; that nothing, “OUGHT PREJUDICE THE PEOPLE”

 

“The Said Rights Claimed”:

“And they do Claime Demand and Insist upon all and singular The Premises as their undoubted Rights and Liberties and that noe Declarations Judgements Doeings or Proceedings to the Prejudice of the People, in any of the said Premises, ought in any wise to be drawne hereafter, into Consequence or Example”

 

CONCLUSION

Now, by the reading of the history, of my country; I now know all of this; then I assert that, ELIZABETH THE SECOND, as the ‘Reigning Monarch’ must also be aware of this also. So I merely pose this question to her, “Why, if you know all about, “The Said Rights Claimed”, and, you have the evidence before you verifying that the WHIPS in parliament, is corrupt; Why, then, have you granted the ‘Royal Assent’ to any, Law, Act, or Bill, that has been passed by parliament under the ‘influence’ of the political party WHIPS?

 

ELIZABETH THE SECOND, failing to honour and comply with the “Original Contact”; requiring, the protection of “Subjects of the Crown”; in, actually, “Breaking that contract betwixt King and People”. She fails in her duty. Therefore,

 

 She, too, can be Deposed.

Lady Chatterley's Lover, the trial....

The trial of Lady Chatterley’s Lover

 “The Old Bailey has, for centuries, provided the ultimate arena for challenging the state. But of all its trials – for murder and mayhem, for treason and sedition – none has had such profound social and political consequences as the trial in 1960 of Penguin Books for publishing Lady Chatterley's Lover. The verdict was a crucial step towards the freedom of the written word, at least for works of literary merit (works of no literary merit were not safe until the trial of Oz in 1971, and works of demerit had to await the acquittal of Inside Linda Lovelace in 1977). But the Chatterley trial marked the first symbolic moral battle between the humanitarian force of English liberalism and the dead hand of those described by George Orwell as "the striped-trousered ones who rule"......

For all those that value FREEDOM, FREE SPEECH, and, FREE EXPRESSION, I sincerely urge you to read this excellent piece published by the ‘Guardian Review’, written by Geoffrey Robertson QC

The true importance of our FREEDOM in respect to the ‘Lady Chatterley’s Lover’ trial, will then be revealed.

Read it here:

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2010/oct/22/dh-lawrence-lady-chatterley-trial

Gordonj

LADY CHATTERLEY'S LOVER...

LADY CHATTERLEY'S LOVER,

And, the BBC....

BBC television, in featuring this DH LAWRENCE classic story again; has in this version intentionally censored or played down the SEX, in the story and in the book. Complying with the current censorious diktat of both Church and the Totalitarian State; the BBC is scared rigid to portray the story of DH LAWRENCE, as it has been originally written.

Great Britain today is rapidly returning to the days of 'pre-1960's' repression.

LADY CHATTERLEY'S LOVER is 'SEX'.
The story written by DH LAWRENCE is all about 'SEX'.
To leave the 'SEX' out or to play down the 'SEX' wholly destroys the original classical work. Leaving the 'SEX' out or playing down the 'SEX' in this BBC production; is positively absurd.

This censored BBC production merely insults the TV viewer and their intelligence. Leaving the SEX out, or playing down the SEX in, "LADY CHATTERLEY's LOVER", is just as absurd as viewing, "Planet Earth", yet censoring from all view, "ALL OF THE PEOPLE"

 SEX is predominate throughout the entire book, it features,

1. The unfortunate 'impotence' of the, husband; who cannot perform the sexual act through injury sustained in war.
2. The urgent and desperate need of the wife who yearns for the sexual attentions and the sexual penetration of the male.
3. The sheer lust and sexual pleasure of both the 'gamekeeper' and this wife, who joyfully engage in copulation.

In the famous "Penguin" trial where the publisher was accused of publishing an obscene book; the Jury returned the verdict of “Not Guilty" determining in, LAW, that the book was not obscene and, furthermore, that it did not, "deprave or corrupt". Yet, as the prosecution pointed out during the trial the 'language' in the book contained the words "FUCK" and "FUCKING" no less than 30 times. And, other words complained of in the book, which the prosecution asserted would, 'deprave and corrupt'; were: CUNT, 14 times; BALLS, 13 times; SHIT and ARSE, 6 times each; COCK, 4 times; and, PISS, 3 times.

Yet, the Jury were still not convinced "beyond all reasonable doubt" that these words were intended to "deprave or corrupt".

How is it then that in this, 21st Century of Humankind, that we allow, both Church and the, 'Totalitarian State', and, the BBC, to censor these common 'English' words from our lives?

THE RIGHT OF "FREE EXPRESSION" IS INHERENT IN THE GENE.

Gordon J Sheppard