The English Constitution: Fact or Fiction?

 

Here is a message from Albert Burgess; one of the nation’s leading authorities on the English Constitution and English Constitutional and Common Law.

‘As politicians continue to sideline the Queen and remove her prerogatives for their own purposes, it is vital that the British people know the truth before the risk of being hoodwinked by career politician’s intent on their own agenda. It is hoped the money is available to put this as a leaflet through every door.’
Albert Burgess

 

Please pass this information to everyone you know…

 

 

The English Constitution: Fact or Fiction?

 

  • What is this ‘mythical’ thing called the English Constitution?
  • What part does or should convention play in the Constitution, what is custom or legal fiction? These and many other questions occur.

 

There is a fallacy that we the English do not have a constitution.  What we do not have is a constitution written on one piece of paper like the American constitution.  But that does not mean we do not have a very real constitution because we do.  Indeed our constitution is so real and so good just about every common law country in the world has copied it.

 

‘Talleyrand’, a French Bishop and diplomat, who served Three French Kings and Napoleon Bonaparte, said:

 

“When the English Constitution dies, freedom dies”.

 

And for his entire life he was our enemy.

 

Constitution

So where do we find this mythical constitution of ours?  Professor Taswell Langmede senior lecturer in Constitutional Law and History at University College London in his book written in 1871, said the English Constitution comprises Magna Carta 1215, the 1628 Petition of Right and the 1689 Bill of Rights.  I would add Habeas Corpus.  These four things comprise the English Constitution.  But they do not complete the Constitution because Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights tell us what the King is not allowed to do.  The Petition of Right is telling the King how we want to be governed.  But there is nothing in any of these major pieces of constitutional law which tells the King, or us, what the King can do.  This comes from the ancient Common Law of Kingship which goes back to when we first elected the first King of the English and maybe much further back even than that.

 

Custom and Legal Fiction

So let us start there.  The Anglo Saxons believed their Kings descended from the ancient God Woden who they dumped when they converted to Christianity.  Alfred the Great, on being elected King of the English, looked at all the laws and customs of the old kingdoms which combined to make his Kingdom.  What is a legal custom?  A custom is any law that has been in use from before time of memory with the approval of the people.  Chief Justice Sir Edward Coke (pronounced as ‘Cook’) ruled that “before time of memory” meant any law older than 1197 when Richard the Lion Heart was crowned – 400 years earlier.  So any law over 400 years old becomes the Custom and Practice of England.  As such, it is beyond the reach of Parliament so it cannot be lawfully/legally repealed.

 

What is a legal fiction? A legal fiction is a tool used by the courts to get over an impossible situation.  For example, your uncle dies and leaves everything to you.  But for whatever reason you hated him and want nothing of his.  His Will says it must all come to you. So by law you have to have it, like it or not.  So the court will invent the legal fiction that you died before your uncle so that it is impossible to give it to you. It then goes to whoever follows you.

 

Kingship and Prerogative

Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights impose limits on what the King can do.  But neither of these great contracts between the King and the people contains anything new.  When they say the King cannot fine us or seize our property or send us to prison, these things had been in existence since Alfred the Great imposed limits on what he as King, could do.  The King cannot on his own, make or unmake law.  He does this in conjunction with Parliament.  But what can the King do?  The King can do anything which is legal.  To do this, we give him what is known as the Royal Prerogative. Government today say it is difficult to define the limits of the Prerogative.  This is arrant nonsense.  The King may use the Prerogative to do anything which benefits his subjects.  However if he does anything which harms even his lowliest subject, then this is an illegal use of the Prerogative and must be withdrawn.

 

Who can use the Royal Prerogative?  The Prerogative, like everything else the King has, was given to him by our ancient forefathers.  And the King and only the King can use the Royal Prerogative.  The King is refused permission by us, the loyal subjects, from letting anyone else use it.  So what happens if the King is in a long term illness which prevents him working?  The office of King must still function.  So we the people, in discussion with the Kings family appoint a Regent to perform the duties of the King until he is able to carry them out himself.  So the practice of government ministers exercising the Royal Prerogative is constitutionally illegal.

 

To Diminish the King/Crown

When our forefathers elected our first King, it was decided by them that the King must be visibly higher than his subjects.  So they gave him vast tracts of land and a lot of money and jewels.  And they made the rule that the King must live off the profits of what we now call the Crown Estates.  And they gave him the Royal Prerogative on which they set limits.  The King is forbidden by law from disposing of any of his wealth or from giving or lending the Royal Prerogative to anyone else for any reason, because to do so, would diminish the Crown.  That is illegal under our Common Law of Kingship.  Over the last 300 years Parliament in the form of the House of Commons has stolen the Royal Authority and like all theft, it is illegal.  In this case, however, it constitutes the major crime of high treason contrary to the 1351 Treason Act and the Common Law of Kingship.

 

The King in Parliament

Parliament, as we know it, was formed by King Edward I in 1297.  It comprises the House of Commons, the House of Lords and the King.  Since 1420 the Commons has had the right to initiate all legislation which then goes to the Lords who scrutinise it.  Purely in line with their conscience they recommend amendments, reject it outright or give it their certificate as good law.  When it has been passed by both Houses it goes before the King who looks at it and depending entirely on the King’s conscience, he will grant or refuse the Royal assent.  If the King refuses the Assent there is no power on earth that can overrule him.

 

Convention

Convention is an agreement that the Lords will not do certain things in contravention to the will of the Commons.  Conventions in this sense erode the authority of the Lords and are constitutionally illegal.

 

Cognisance

Each House of Parliament has a common law cognisance to conduct its business in its own way, which includes the right of each house to decide who sits in it and who does not.

 

At least that is how our very intelligent forefathers set the system up with checks and balances.  But since 1420 the Commons have been on a power grab.  In 1667 they demanded that the Lords could not amend a money bill that had been put forward.  In 1677 in a moment of madness, the Lords gave way.  In 1909 believing that they could not amend the budget, the Lords rejected it.  Prime Minister Asquith put a bill forward to remove the authority of the Lords to reject a bill.  Under threat of his putting 500 new Peers into the House of Lords who would vote for its closure, the Lords gave way and agreed that they would not reject a bill.

 

King Edward VII refused the Assent stating that the bill was unconstitutional and removed a protection from his subjects.  Asquith was ordered to go to the country.  He was returned and during the King’s speech King Edward VII said the only reason he was putting forward the new Parliament Act, was because his ministers said he had to. The King could still refuse the Assent.  However shortly after this, the King fell ill and died.  King George V, on becoming King was told he kept all his prerogatives but may not use any of them unless he has the backing of a minister.  The power grab was complete.  The Commons had neutered the Lords and usurped the Royal Authority.

Albert Burgess

albertburgess@hotmail.com

www.englishconstitutiongroup.org

 

Editor’s note:

 

Chief Justice Sir Edward Coke (pronounced as ‘Cook’) ruled:

 

“When an Act of Parliament is against common right and reason, or repugnant, or impossible to be performed, the common law will control it and adjudge such Act to be void.”

 

This was the most controversial statement that Sir Edward Coke made; and he was absolutely correct!

 

 

 

Whoever becomes the next Prime Minister of Great Britain should beware that their ‘power’ is only invested in them through the authority of the People and our Monarch, without any level of coercion or threat, as such actions are unlawful and therefore against our constitution. Parliament will NEVER be sovereign over the people or the monarch.

 

Therefore, any attempt to re-write our constitution and/or our common law, or replace them with the abhorrent and unlawful regulations that we have suffered under the European Union; will be unlawful.

 

The fact that Great Britain was unlawfully coerced into joining the EEC/EU, by anti-British traitors, was an act of treason. It was in contravention of our common law; our constitution; and also the ‘Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969’; therefore, Great Britain should simply tear up the treaties of Rome, Maastricht and Lisbon and walk away. Also, we should not retain ANY of the despotic EU laws and should revert to the common law and statutory laws of 1972.

 

Mrs May, we hope you are paying attention: The indigenous Caucasoid British people will NOT be replaced in our own land!

 

 

 

  • Vig orniensis

    Which parts of the realm does the English Constitution affect?

  • Vig orniensis

    OK let’s try again – this is a serious question – what effect does the English constitution have upon the other areas of the UK?

  • Camulod

    Hello Vig orniensis.

    It is a VERY serious question.

    The answer to that question is that the English Constitution has an equal effect on all of the inhabitants of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, as those rights and protections are shared throughout Great Britain, by virtue of the Act of Union.

    At Common Law, it is also recognised that, Eire may rejoin our Union and regain that protection, should they ever choose to request the same.

    The indigenous Caucasoid peoples of these islands are scientifically proven to be the oldest Caucasoid (European) peoples in the world; we have lived here for at least thirty three thousand years, which is almost three times longer than the North American Indians and thirty two thousand years longer than the Maoris have been in New Zealand.

    Therefore, anyone attempting to remove the rights of the English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish peoples (to quote our modern day names) falls foul of our constitution and the common law.

    The bankster-controlled puppets in parliament THINK they are sovereign and therefore above the people and the monarch, but they are misguided. Any attempt by them to claim such authority ‘constitutes’ (excuse the pun) a very serious and aggressive challenge to the sovereignty of the people.

    They have been getting away with it for a very long time, but the current communication media makes it much easier for the people to discover the truth – and much harder for the liars to continue to get away with it.

This site uses cookies. Find out more about this site’s cookies.