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