Getting rid of a negligent useless Queen

 

BREXIT: IN CONSIDERING THE SHEER CHAOS, CONFUSION, AND CORRUPTION TAKING PLACE IN PARLIAMENT AND IN THE COUNTRY, IN RESPECT TO 'BREXIT'. GREAT BRITAIN NOW FACES THE GREATEST PERIL AND PLIGHT SINCE WORLD WAR TWO; AND, WITH NO ONE IN THE COUNTRY, HAVING THE SLIGHTEST IDEA, WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN NEXT; IF AND WHEN BRITAIN LEAVES THE E.U.

 

AND. WITH THE QUEEN, SITTING UPON THE THRONE, ENJOYING ALL THE PRIVILEGES OF MONARCHY; YET, WHO HAS NOT, EVEN 'LIFTED A FINGER' TO INTERVENE. SHE, WHOLLY ABANDON'S HER DUTY.

 

I AM NOW CONSIDERING STARTING A CAMPAIGN TO GET RID OF THE QUEEN.

 

The Charges against the Queen.

 

1.     Throughout her entire reign she has "Broken the Original Contract Betwixt King and People".

2.     Thereby, she has failed to protect the people. (as evidenced yet here again with 'BREXIT')

3.     She has failed to 'Govern the People' - the OATH SHE SWORE - at her Coronation so to do.

4.     She has repeatedly and consistently granted the 'ROYAL ASSENT' to corrupt Acts Motions and Bills passed by parliament. NOTE: All legislation passed by parliament 'under the influence and instruction of the political party WHIPS', is unlawful and corrupt; because, it overrules and supplants all rightful influence placed upon elected Members of Parliament, by the Constituents. This therefore causes the "PREJUDICE OF THE PEOPLE" - which is wholly proscribed by the, "STATUTE IN FORCE/BILL OF RIGHTS 1689/"THE SAID RIGHTS CLAIMED".

5.     The QUEEN has either granted the "ROYAL ASSENT" to this corrupt legislation herself; or she has allowed it to be granted by the despots and despotism now dominating and controlling the 'administration' of the Monarchy.

6.     Whatever or whoever granted the 'assent' it has been 'consistently granted' to corrupt LAW. The Queen has never ‘refused’ to grant it. The very last time a ‘Reigning Monarch” ‘refused’ to grant the “ROYAL ASSENT” was in March 1708; when Queen Anne refused to grant it to a Bill passed by parliament for the establishment of the ‘militia’ in Scotland.

7.     Brexit: The "Triggering of Article 50" legislation created and passed by parliament was passed 'under the influence and instruction of the political party Whips; and, within hours of its passing', it was granted, the "Royal Assent".

8.     Very doubtful the Queen even saw that legislation.

THIS CANNOT GO ON.

 

THE BRITISH PEOPLE HAVE NO 'PROTECTION OF LAW' WHATSOEVER.

THE ENTIRE ELITE ESTABLISHMENT OF MONARCHY, JUDICIARY, GOVERNMENT, AND PARLIAMENT MEERELY LOOK UPON 'LAW' AS IT BEING SOMETHING THAT ONLY THE 'COMMON PEOPLE' MUST OBEY - WHILST THEY, EVERYONE OF THEM, FLOUT AND BREACH 'LAW' ALL THE TIME.

 

A. THERE IS NO WRITTEN CONSTITUTION.

B. THERE IS NO BILL OF RIGHTS.

C. THERE IS NO ACCESS TO THE COURTS TO TEST QUESTION OR CHALLENGE THE 'ABUSE' OR 'PREJUDICE' OF PARLIAMENT FROM WITHIN LAW.

D. THE JUDICIARY DENIES ALL THE 'QUESTIONING' OF PARLIAMENT IN THE COURTS.

E. THE 'QUEEN' CHARGED WITH THE DUTY AND RESPONSIBILITY TO HONOUR THE 'ORIGINAL CONTRACT' REQUIRING THE 'PROTECTION OF THE PEOPLE'; LAZILY AND NEGLIGENTLY, FAILS TO PROTECT.

 

THE TIME HAS COME TO GET RID OF THE QUEEN. 

And, to get rid of MONARCHY - for it now has no legal validity or value at all.

 

The, "DIVINE RIGHT OF KINGS" departed this land of 'England' at the precise instant "Charles the First" had his head cut off. Thereafter, the 'Reigning Monarch' only 'reigns' by the consent of the People;

 

"ALLEGIANCE IS GIVEN TO THE LIEGE LORD - FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE LIEGE LORD"

 

NOTE. Re. The "Original Contract".

 

1.  KING JAMES Il was removed from the throne in 1688 by the CONVENTION (Parliament). He was charged with, "Breaking the Original Contract Betwixt King and People".

2.  The CONVENTION set up a huge debate between both LORDS and COMMONS held in the 'Painted Chamber' of the Commons, to determine whether KING JAMES II had been 'guilty' of this charge. The debate was known as, "The Debate at Large" and it considered the words, "Abdicate" and "The Throne is Vacant".

3.  The resolution of the debate ruled; that KING JAMES II was 'guilty' of "Breaking the Original Contract" and, that thereby, he had indeed, "ABDICATED THE THRONE".

4.  HENRY POWLE, The Speaker, during that debate set out the relevance of the "ORIGINAL CONTRACT" (An un-written contract, yet fully entrenched in Law) declaring,

"It is upon those on the throne of England that the people look to for their protection and to whom for that Cause they owe the Allegiance of Subjects, but there being none now that the people can look to for that Regal Protection and to whom for that Cause they owe the Allegiance of Subjects, the Commons conceive the throne is Vacant.

 

5. The, "EARL OF CLARENDON" in speaking of the 'Line of Descent' and any new King to occupy the throne, declared,

 

"The Contract is as binding upon the Successor as well as it was on the Deposed if the Successor breaks to Contract, he too may be Deposed." 

 

ELIZABETH the Second has not honoured that Contract once, in all the years she has occupied that throne; thereby, each time she has "Broken the Original Contract"; She has 'ABDICATED' that throne.

 

IT IS NOW IMPERATIVE TO ACT - TO GET RID OF THIS USELESS NEGLIGENT QUEEN AND, THE MONARCHY - ONCE AND FOR ALL. THE ONLY WAY TO ACCOMPLISH THIS, IS BY CHALLENGE IN 'LAW'; AS I PROPOSE.