The Root of All Authority To Govern Our English People

Or; Who Or What The Hell Gives You The Right To Tell An Englishman (from here onwards implies Englishwoman too) What To Do And How To Behave, Eh? As the title of this article suggests, we are going to get to the bottom of the question of where the root of the authority to govern our English People is, where does it start. 

There has to be a root, right? Well there is, and my intention here is to show it to you, and in the case you may have inadvertently acquired a slave-like mindset with regards to being governed; a mindset alien to a ‘freeborn self determining People’, the default state of our sovereign English People.

No power can exempt princes from the obligation to the eternal laws of God and nature. In all disputes between power and liberty, power must always be proved, but liberty proves itself; the one being founded on positive law, the other upon the law of nature. – Lord John Somers

I believe this to be a question that we, the English People have not asked ourselves in recent years, and today, the answer to that question will give us the correct perspective with which to look at governance, and from that perspective, regain the psychological edge that we so separately need.

As Somers put it again in Vox Populi Vox Dei: Being True Maxims of Government:

‘The doctrine of passive-obedience, without reserve, is charging God with as palpable a contradiction as any two things can be, it being diametrically opposite to the law of self-preservation, which is the law of nature, and the decree of the Almighty, which law is sacred, and not to be infringed by any man.’ – Lord John Somers 

This purpose of this article is to provide original sources of authoritative proofs that can be referenced as and when required by the reader. From the records I will also prove the existence of what is termed the ‘original contract’, and that despite what the naysayers of our People so confidently and smuggly (and rather too happily for my liking) claim, that we do indeed have a Constitution, (and it ain’t British). 

To start, I think it’s a good idea that we’re all on the same page with a fundamental concept. 

When we play a board game, any board game, that game always comes with a sheet or booklet outlining the rules. It’s these rules that make the game work. When you know the rules the game is enjoyable, and win or lose you know that it’s your skill or lack of it that dictates the outcome. If the fundamental rules of the game are modified, even with the players agreement, it undergoes a change in character and everything about the game changes, sometimes for the better, and sometimes not so. 

But if the rules are modified arbitrarily, and even worse, secretly, it gives those modifying how we play the game an unfair advantage, and when we see that the result of that advantage excludes the majority of the players from ever getting ahead and winning, the game is no longer enjoyable and no one except those with the advantage want to play. 

When we remember, or rediscover that the original rules of the game didn’t go anywhere, but are lying at the bottom of the box, neglected, musty smelling and stained with age, we can realise that we only changed how the game is played, but not the game itself.

So if the players agree that the modified version of the game is, no longer enjoyable, or even harmful if we are being coerced into playing and punished for transgressions; what is to stop us from taking out the original dusty smelly old rule sheet from the box and starting afresh? A game reset, or restoration of original game rules. There is absolutely no reason why if it is our collective Will, that we cannot do that, is there. The people with the unfair arbitrarily acquired advantage won’t like it one bit, and why would they when they would lose that advantage and have to work as hard as everyone else to win. 

In the exactly the same way that the game has original rules that ensure play goes smoothly and the players play fairly, so does England.

England’s ‘rule sheet’ (so to speak) is our English Constitution, whose character is formed by the ‘fundamental principles’ defining it which in essence, lays out the relationship between the State and our People, the original rules of the game if you will. But who of us has read and understood it? Who knows what the originally established rules say about who it is that governs us, and how we are to be governed? And what about if we’re not being governed according to the rules? Do the rules themselves provide a remedy for a constitutional restoration? 

Without exception we were all born into a society where we are not playing by the established rules of the game but by modified and redefined fundamental principles not of our design and certainly not by our ‘common consent’, an arbitrary rewriting of what was originally established and constituted. Constitutional alterations of such nature are known as a constitutional subversion. To subvert the Constitution is a serious offence and in the past those found guilty of attempting to subvert the constitution have been hanged, and afterwards had their heads lopped orf. 

After the bodies had hung for half an hour, they were lowered one at a time and an unidentified individual in a black mask decapitated them against an angled block with a small knife. Each beheading was accompanied by shouts, booing and hissing from the crowd and each head was displayed to the assembled spectators, declaring it to be the head of a traitor, before placing it in the coffin with the remainder of the body.

A very good and desperately needed deterrent in deed, is my opinion on that matter. 

So then, where does the authority to govern our English People originate, where is the root, who wields this great power, and how is it obtained? 

Most people would probably think it originates with the vote in a general election? That seems the most likely origin, right? By voting, ‘they’ say that we give our consent for them, Parliament, to make laws that we are bound to observe and abide by, …  and you’d bloody well better play ball Mister, or else.

Except, England’s ancestors who were very well versed in the history and of the principles of our English Constitution and of our ancient Rights and Liberties, did not agree with arbitrary governance, tyranny, in the slightest and always fought vigorously against it; sometimes violently. 

John Selden, a 17th century jurist and scholar of England’s ancient Laws and Constitution and praised as ‘the chief of learned men reputed in this land’ reasoned that all lawful rank and privilege disappears when a governing tyrant causes our People ‘Injury’ that he refuses to redress, leaving it only right that the use of Arms was the last option available to vindicate our Rights. 

Here he uses duelling to demonstrate his reasoning. 

A Duke ought to fight with a Gentleman. The Reason is this : the Gentleman will say to the Duke ’tis True, you hold a higher Place in the State than I : there’s a great distance between you and me, but your Dignity does not Privilege you to do me an Injury ; as soon as ever you do me an Injury, you make yourself my equal ; and as you are my equal I challenge you ; and in sense the Duke is bound to Answer him. This will give you some Light to understand the Quarrel betwixt a Prince and his Subjects. 

Though there be a vast Distance between him and them, and they are to obey him, according to their Contract, yet he hath no power to do them an Injury : then they think themselves as much bound to vindicate their Right, as they are to obey his Lawful Commands ; nor is there any other measure of Justice left upon Earth but Arms.

Selden was also party to drafting the Petition of Right (1627). In modern times there is the Selden Society established in his honour and styled as ‘the only learned society and publisher devoted entirely to English legal history.’. Owing to his pedigree I do believe that what he had to say on the matter carries weight and that the principle that he argues continues to make perfect logical sense. A tyrant on the other hand, would not. 

Although it is partly true, our consent IS entrusted to the representative that we vote for (I’ll expand on this very important matter in a following article), this is not the root, because if it were, we could not be said to be truly ‘governed by consent’, leaving us as nothing more than slaves to the arbitrary Will of those individuals of our own rank acting as our ‘representatives’ in Parliament. Again arbitrary rule being a concept that our ancestors believed  truly abhorrent. 

Under these conditions it is hardly surprising that a slave-like mindset would be acquired. That is I believe, where the vast majority of our English People are today; Parliament make laws that we have no say in and there is absolutely NOTHING that we can do about it. We are impotent to act and that’s just how it is. Though on a positive note, this mindset is slowly shifting as we continue to become familiar with the established fundamental principles that define our English Constitution. 

No then, it’s not voting, though voting is fundamental to the preservation of our ancient Rights and freedoms (again, I’ll expand on this later).

Alex Coppen goes into great detail in this article demonstrating where the authority exercised in Parliament originates, but not where the authority to actually assemble a Parliament originates. Parliament has neither the power or the authority to assemble itself. There is a higher authority than even Parliament.

The Government governs by enacting binding legislation that coerces obedience by we the People, but without the agreement of one very special member of Parliament, the supreme governor if you will, that proposed legislation has no lawful effect and it is not at all possible that it will pass into law. I’ll go even further and say that without this individuals presence, Parliament itself as a legitimate entity is not a Parliament and has no lawful authority to sit as one. The exception being a Convention Parliament of course.

It is the supreme governor alone, and only the supreme governor, has the power and authority to assemble a Parliament and to dissolve that Parliamentary session. He is also the only authority within this Realm with the power to convert a Bill into a lawful Act of Parliament giving it the force of our Law. Seems to me that he’s the most powerful person in the land to have that much authority and control over our Government and ‘lawmakers’; the governor of the governors, the ground on which all authority to govern sits. Full stop. 

The most convincing way to prove to you who it is, if you haven’t already guessed, is to show you the current law (as originally enacted and intended); but not just any old law, English Constitutional Law under the Coronation Oath Act (1688).

The Arch-Bishop or Bishop shall say, 

Will You solemnely Promise and Sweare to Governe the People of this Kingdome of England and the Dominions thereto belonging according to the Statutes in Parlyament Agreed on and the Laws and Customs of the same?

The King and Queene shall say,

I solemnly Promise soe to doe.

As you will be aware, King Charles III very recently solemnly promised to govern his subjects according to our Law, as all Monarchs are required to do by the very same Law. I think it reasonable to suggest that our Law cannot compel an individual to make a solemn promise that both that individual and the Law itself knows it impossible to keep or honour. 

This from the introductory section of the same law demonstrates just how entrenched the Coronation Oath is within our system of governance, and what the legislature of the time intended by enacting it as binding Constitutional Law. 

Whereas by the Law and Ancient Usage of this Realme the Kings and Queens thereof have taken a Solemne Oath upon the Evangelists at Their respective Coronations to maintaine the Statutes Laws and Customs of the said Realme and all the People and Inhabitants thereof in their Spirituall and Civill Rights and Properties But forasmuch as the Oath itselfe on such Occasion Administred hath heretofore beene framed in doubtfull Words and Expressions with relation to ancient Laws and Constitutions at this time unknowne To the end therefore that One Uniforme Oath may be in all Times to come taken by the Kings and Queens of this Realme and to Them respectively Adminstred at the times of Their and every of Their Coronation.

The second Law I’ll show is just as important, not only for what it confirms, but because it forms a second part or an extension to the Bill of Rights (1688/9). How many of our People knew that there is a Bill of Rights part two? Not many I’d guess. But it does tell you in the Statute itself.

Whereas in the first year of the reign of Your Majesty, and of our late most gracious sovereign lady Queen Mary (of blessed memory), an Act of Parliament was made, entitled, "An Act for declaring the rights and liberties of the subject, and for settling the succession of the crown," wherein it was (amongst other things) enacted, established, and declared that …

You will notice that the Bill of Rights (1688/9) is not expressly mentioned at all, and neither would it have been. The ‘Bill of Rights’ and the ‘Act of Settlement’ are the ‘short titles’ which were given some two hundred years later. 

The Bill of Rights was commonly known by it’s descriptive title:

An Act declareing the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Setleing the Succession of the Crowne

And the Act of Settlement by this:

An Act for the further Limitation of the Crown and better securing the Rights and Liberties of the Subject 

So you can see the two statutes are intimately related, the second being enacted to strengthen the first.

You can also see that the titles by which we know these constitutional statutes today, Bill of Rights and Act of Settlement, do not show the importance of what the original legislature actually intended by the enacting of them; which are for our purposes, to ‘secure’ and for ‘better securing the rights and liberties of the subject.’. Clearly they were intended to secure and protect in constitutional law, the anciently established Rights and Liberties of our English People. Forever! 

The Coronation Oath Act confirms that the Monarch is TO GOVERN according to legislation that Parliament has enacted, and by our Law (Common Law) and customs. But what does the Act of Settlement confirm and establish with regards to the Monarch governing?

Firstly it makes it crystal clear that all future Monarchs must take the Coronation Oath:

And that every King and Queen of this Realm who shall come to and succeed in the Imperiall Crown of this Kingdom by vertue of this Act shall have the Coronation Oath administred to him her or them at their respective Coronations according to the Act of Parliament made in the First Year of the Reign of His Majesty and the said late Queen Mary intituled An Act for establishing the Coronation Oath and shall make subscribe and repeat the Declaration in the Act first above recited mentioned or referred to in the Manner and Form thereby prescribed.

Next it establishes that the Monarch, AND those servants under his command, are to govern our People according to the established Laws which secure our religion and our Rights and Liberties, and that those Laws are the Birthright of all Englishmen:

IV The Laws and Statutes of the Realm confirmed. 

And whereas the laws of England are the birth-right of the people thereof, and all the Kings and Queens, who shall ascend the throne of this Realm, ought to administer the government of the same according to the said laws, and all their officers and ministers ought to serve them respectively according to the same: the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, do therefore further humbly pray, That all the laws and statutes of this Realm for securing the established religion, and the rights and liberties of the people thereof, and all other laws and statutes of the same now in force, may be ratified and confirmed, and the same are by His Majesty, by and with the advice of the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, and by authority of the same, ratified and confirmed accordingly.

Our English constitutional statutes clearly establish and confirm that the root of all authority to govern the English People lies solely and exclusively with the reigning Monarch. He is to:

Governe the People of this Kingdome of England and the Dominions thereto belonging according to the Statutes in Parlyament Agreed on and the Laws and Customs of the same’, and, ‘all the Kings and Queens, who shall ascend the throne of this Realm, ought to administer the government of the same according to the said laws, and all their officers and ministers ought to serve them respectively according to the same.

Vitally important to understand is the establishment and confirmation that the Laws of England are the Birthright of all Englishmen. By oath, the Monarch solemnly promises to Govern us according to our established Law, and by oath Crown servants swear loyalty to the Monarch, and it is our Law that protects our Religion, and Rights and Liberties. Again ... 

That all the laws and statutes of this Realm for securing the established religion, and the rights and liberties of the people thereof, and all other laws and statutes of the same now in force, may be ratified and confirmed, and the same are by His Majesty, by and with the advice of the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, and by authority of the same, ratified and confirmed accordingly.

See the Blackstone lectures on the Absolute Rights of the Individual. These were teaching materials given to law students for decades after the these statutes were enacted and will go some way to demonstrating exactly why the Law and access to justice is our Birthright. 

The principle that the Laws of England, the Common Laws, are our Birthright was established long before it was confirmed and enshrined in the Act of Settlement. As explained by Sir Edward Coke, found in The Selected Writings and Speeches of Sir Edward Coke:

The auntient & excellent Lawes of England are the birth-right and the most auntient and best inheritance that the subjects of this realm have, for by them hee injoyeth not onely his inheritance and goods in peace & quietnes, but his lyfe and his most deare Countrey in safety. And for that I feare that many of my deare Countreymen, (and most of them of great capacitie, and excellent parts) for want of understanding of their own evidence, doe want the true knowledge of their auntient birth-right in some points of greatest importance.

When the cause originally belongs to the cognizance of the Common Law, and not to the Ecclesiasticall Court, there although they libell for it according to the course of the Ecclesiasticall Law, yet the Premunire lyeth, for this, that this draws the cause which is determinable at the Common Law, Ad aliud examen,13 viz. to be decided by the Civill or Ecclesiasticall Law; and so deprives the Subject of the benefit of the Common Law, which is his birth-right.

And thereupon King James being informed hereof by the judges of the common pleas (who had granted Prohibitions to the president and councell) gave order that their instructions should be enrolled, to the end that the subject might take advice of learned councell what course he might take to enjoy the benefit of the laws of the realm, his best birthright.

These two constitutional statutes confirm that it is the Monarch who is the supreme governor, and that his officers and ministers who by law, all take an oath of allegiance to him, are to govern on his behalf and to govern as his powers allow, and no more.  

You, Englishman and woman, should be aware the Act of Settlement also contained another section of vital importance, a real doozy. But as a result of an act of subversive skullduggery perpetrated against our English People in 1948 by the British regime, that 300+year old protection was unceremoniously and without our consultation or consent, removed. Read it very carefully and understand what the legislature intended for our People by enacting it as constitutional law: 

That after the said limitation shall take effect as aforesaid, no person born out of the Kingdoms of England, Scotland, or Ireland, or the dominions thereunto belonging (although he be naturalized or made a denizen, except such as are born of English parents) shall be capable to be of the Privy Council, or a member of either House of Parliament, or to enjoy any office or place of trust, either civil or military, or to have any grant of lands, tenements or hereditaments from the Crown, to himself or to any other or others in trust for him;

You can read about grotesque act of constitutional subversion in my first article What Has The British Nationality Act Ever Done For Us? 

Now we need to understand precisely how the Monarch gains the authority to govern in the first place. What is the source of authority that creates a Monarch? 

Just as Parliament does not have the power or authority to create its own existence, neither can a Monarch just arbitrarily assume the authority to govern. That would be an act of tyranny making us no more than slaves would it not?   

The Monarchy is constitutionally bound by what our ancestors called the ‘original contract’. This contract, or compact as it is sometimes written, is an exclusive agreement between People and Monarch, is based on the Trust of the People, and, important to understand, is conditional, meaning that the Right to the throne and government is not absolute.

• The Monarch has many obligations to his subjects but primarily his obligations as we now know are to govern by our established Laws, observe and protect our ancient Rights and Liberties, and protect the established Church.
• The Monarch has no lawful power nor natural Right to cause harm or injury to his subjects. He is to govern according to the established English Law, Law which does not permit Man, whatever his social rank, to cause harm or injury.
• The Monarch is always to do Right by us and never Wrong, and we trust that he will honour his obligations, in full, because after all is said and done, our very lives and liberties are in his hands. 

Post Glorious Revolution, Sir William Blackstone lectured his law students thusly on the ‘Duties of the King’:

I proceed next to the duties, incumbent on the king by our constitution; in consideration of which duties his dignity and prerogative are established by the laws of the land: it being a maxim in the law, that protection and subjection are reciprocal. And these reciprocal duties are what, I apprehend, were meant by the convention in 1688, when they declared that king James had broken the original contract between king and people. But however, as the terms of that original contract were in some measure disputed, being alleged to exist principally in theory, and to be only deducible by reason and the rules of natural law; in which deduction different understandings might very considerably differ; it was, after the revolution, judged proper to declare these duties expressly; and to reduce that contract to a plain certainty. So that, whatever doubts might be formerly raised by weak and scrupulous minds about the existence of such an original contract, they must now entirely cease; especially with regard to every prince, who has reigned since the year 1688.

This then is the sole root of all authority to govern; and it is a conditional agreement between the People and Monarch; the Original Contract.

So how do we know that this is the truth? Is there proof of our ancestors citing it’s existence in an official manner? You betcha.  

English constitutional statutes, parliamentary records and case law are records of our history and probably more accurate than history books on the subject. That is where we gather our proofs. That is where we find out what our English ancestors intended our English Constitution to be. And yes, it is the English Constitution.

I will make my position clear in another article regarding the (apparent) issue of our Constitution being the ‘English Constitution’ or the ‘British Constitution’, but for now be satisfied that the fundamental principles that were constituted and define it was inherited by each successive generation of Englishman since the formation of our English People some 1000+ years ago; prior to it’s principles being adopted just over 300 years ago by the enactment of the British Union and the subsequent creation of the legal entity named Great Britain.

A brand new constitution was never written for this new political union. The Constitution used continued and continues to be the English Constitution, and is no more the British Constitution than it is the British Common Law or the British language.  

A point to consider if you are of the British camp; should the political Union be annulled, as it very well has the potential to be; in England would our ‘British’ Constitution then become English again? From the Union With Scotland Act (1707):

That the two Kingdoms of England and Scotland shall upon the first day of May, which shall be in the year one thousand seven hundred and seven, and forever after, be united into one Kingdom by the name of Great Britain; …

Getting back on track, this, our English Constitution was restored to original principles just prior to the union with Scotland. To present proof of the reasoning argued by the Commons in the 1688 Convention Parliament which was eventually accepted by the House of Lords for King James II having ‘abdicated’ the government (as opposed to ‘abandoned’ as the Lords wanted it worded).

This relates directly with how we are meant to be governed, and by the authorities I will present, firmly believe it sets a precedent for the legitimate removal of any and all Monarchs who either directly, or indirectly by the actions of their servants, subvert the established Constitution and breach the Original Contract. 

It is exclusively by the establishment of this constitutional precedent the present Monarch, King Charles III, including his predecessors going back to 1688, enjoys the privilege of wearing the Royal Crown. If not for the establishing of that precedent, King Charles III would not be on the Throne today. 

So it stands to reason, does it not, that it may again be relied on for his removal for his direct and indirect breaching of his solemn oath and contractual obligations.

Both the Declaration of Rights (1688) and the Bill of Rights contain the phrase: 

... And whereas the said late King James the Second having abdicated the government and the throne being thereby vacant, ...

But the wording of that sentence did not come about easily.

After much debate it was resolved by the Commons in that Convention Parliament of 1688 that the King had abdicated. Their grand Vote of the Vacancy of the Throne:

Resolved, That King James the Second, having endeavour'd to subvert the Constitution of the Kingdom, by breaking the Original Contract between King and People; and by the Advice of Jesuits, and other wicked Persons, having violated the Fundamental Laws, and withdrawn himself out of the Kingdom, hath Abdicated the Government, and that the Throne is thereby become Vacant.

That resolution speaks for itself. By subverting the English Constitution, the ‘Original Contract’ between our English People and their King had been breached, the natural result of which being his abdication, by performance, and the vacating of the Throne.

When the Declaration was passed to them from the House of Commons for approval, the Lords struggled with the use of the word ‘abdicated’ preferring instead ‘deserted’, and the inclusion of the vacancy of the Throne. Their reply was conveyed to the Commons thusly:

Mr. Speaker, The Lords have considered of the Vote of this House of the 28th of January last, to which they concur with Amendments; and unto which Amendments they desire the Concurrence of this House. 

The Amendments made by the Lords to the Votes sent up to them from this House the 28th of January, were read and are as followeth;

L. 8. Instead of the Word abdicated, read deserted.

L. 9. Leave out these Words, And that the Throne is thereby vacant.

Eventually after a lot of toing and froing and with no agreement being reached, a conference was requested, and granted by the Lords, and a committee from the House of Commons was formed to debate the matter directly with the Lords. It was a long drawn out affair, but it was the legal arguments put forward by John Somers and John Holt (later Lord Chief Justice) which convinced the Lords that it was the subversive actions of King James II constituted what they resolved as, his ‘abdication’.  

Both Somers and Holt presented authorities from the ancient records, and here Mr Holt gives what turned out to be the decisive argument.

Mr Serjeant Holt: 

But, my Lords, both in the common Law of England, and the civil Law, and in common Understanding, there are express Acts of Renunciation that are not by Deed; for if your Lordships please to observe, the Government and Magistracy is under a Trust, and any acting contrary to that Trust is a renouncing of the Trust, though it be not a renouncing by formal Deed: For it is a plain Declaration, by Act and Deed, though not in Writing, that he who hath the Trust, acting contrary, is a Disclaimer of the Trust; especially, my Lords, if the actings be such as are inconsistent with, and subversive of this Trust: For how can a Man, in Reason or Sense, express a greater Renunciation of a Trust, than by the constant Declarations of his Actions to be quite contrary to that Trust? 

This, my Lords, is so plain, both in Understanding and Practice, that I need do no more but repeat it again, and leave it with your Lordships, That the doing an Act inconsistent with the Being and End of a thing, or that shall not answer the End of that thing, but quite the contrary, that shall be construed an Abdication and formal Renunciation of that thing.

The precedent established that the power and authority of a Monarch to govern our English People is held in Trust by the consent of our People on the condition that our Law, Liberties and Religion are preserved from subversion, which I showed earlier is our Birthright. Wilfully acting contrary to that Trust is to renounce that Trust which by default is to abdicate.  

King James’s abdication was then confirmed as such in the Declaration of Rights (1688) 

Whereas the late King James the Second, by the assistance of divers evil counsellors, judges and ministers employed by him, did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant religion and the laws and liberties of this kingdom; ...

... And whereas the said late King James the Second having abdicated the government and the throne being thereby vacant, ...

As was the intention of the Convention Parliament:

And whereas the said late King James the Second having abdicated the government and the throne being thereby vacant, his Highness the prince of Orange (whom it hath pleased Almighty God to make the glorious instrument of delivering this kingdom from popery and arbitrary power) …

... in order to such an establishment as that their religion, laws and liberties might not again be in danger of being subverted, upon which letters elections having been accordingly made;

The Declaration was read to William of Orange with the offer of the Crown of England to which he thankfully accepted the Trust placed in him to preserve the Religion, Laws, and Liberties of the English People. This he did in writing. His acceptance was then stitched to the Declaration and added to the Rolls. 

This historic act of offer and acceptance is clear proof of the reestablishment and reaffirming of the Original Contract between our sovereign self determining English People and their newly chosen Monarch. 

Day Friday 15 February 1688 

His Majesties Gracious answer to the Declaration of both houses.

My Lords and Gentlemen.

This is certainly the greatest proof of the trust that you have in us that can be given which is the thing that maketh us value it the more and we thankfully accept what you have offered. And as I had no other intention of coming hither than to preserve your Religion, Laws and Liberties so you may be sure that I shall endeavour to support them and shall be willing to concur in anything that shall be for the good of the kingdom and to do all that is in my power to advance the welfare and glory of the nation.

The Declaration being the basis of the restoration of our English Constitution and reestablishment of the Original Contract, was then given the force of Law by the Enactment of the Bill of Rights, An Act declareing the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Setleing the Succession of the Crowne, where it is confirmed, declared, and enacted that all servants of the Monarch and of the Monarch’s heirs and successors are legally bound to uphold the fundamental principles concerning our ancient constitutional Rights and Liberties, forever. 

Subjects Liberties to be allowed, and Ministers hereafter to serve according to the same.  

VI.  Now in pursuance of the premisses, the said lords spiritual and temporal, and commons, in parliament assembled, for the ratifying, confirming and establishing the said declaration, and the articles, clauses, matters, and things therein contained, by the force of a law made in due form by authority of parliament, do pray that it may be declared and enacted, That all and singular the rights and liberties asserted and claimed in the said declaration, are the true, ancient, and indubitable rights and liberties of the people of this kingdom, and so shall be esteemed, allowed, adjudged, deemed, and taken to be, and that all and every the particulars aforesaid shall be firmly and strictly holden and observed, as they are expressed in the said declaration; and all officers and ministers whatsoever shall serve their Majesties and their successors according to the same in all times to come. 

To summarise:

• Ultimate sovereignty lies with our freeborn English People.
• The ‘Original Contract’ forms the basis for the governance of our People; governance by consent.
• The Monarch is bound by our Law and by oath.
• The Monarch’s Right to the Throne and to Govern is not absolute, but conditional.
• The Monarch’s powers to govern originate with our People and are held in Trust.
• A Monarch acting contrary to the fundamental principles established by the original contract, renounces all of the governing powers held in Trust, thus effecting their immediate abdication.
• The Monarch cannot govern without the assistance of ‘servants’ (officers and ministers).
• Powers entrusted to the Monarch are delegated to Crown servants, who too hold them in Trust, and too are bound by oath.
• Misuse of entrusted powers by Crown servants is misuse of entrusted powers by the Monarch.
• If the Monarchy and Government are captured by tyranny causing Injury without redress to our freeborn sovereign English People, the only course of action available to restore our Birthright is by force of Arms.

I will also point out that regardless of what is said about the current power of the Monarch:

• The Original Contract is binding until at least one of the party renounces all contractual obligations. Our English People have never done so. 
• Only the Monarch has the power and authority to assemble a Parliament.
• Only the Monarch has the power and authority to convert a Bill into a lawful Act (of Parliament).
• Without a Monarch to delegate his power and authority to govern, the Lord and Commons have no legitimate authority to act.
• The precedent established by the 1688 Convention Parliament is provably valid, it’s effect being observable today in King Charles III sitting on the Throne. 

Finally this should be understood by all of our People:

If the Government causes us Injury (it provably has) and the Monarch does not step in as per his contractual obligations with our Peoples (denying Royal Assent to tyrannical legislation, for example), it is he who renounces those obligations and the Trust of our English People, and as established by precedent, abdicates; leaving us with NO legitimately authoritative; GOVERNMENT; POLICE FORCE; COURTS; ARMED FORCES; etc, because all of them by oath of allegiance rely on the authority of a legitimate Monarch for their powers. 

There is a phrase maybe you have heard but not quite understood, it is: ‘The Constitution is the solution’; and how I understand our English Constitution, I believe there is great truth in that. 

Food for thought.

I’ll conclude with a few words by (Lord) John Somers (committee member in the 1688 Convention Parliament, if you remember) from his pamphlet The Security Of Englishmen’s Lives, Or The Trust, Power, And Duty Of The Grand Jurys Of England speaking about our English Constitution.

THE Principal Ends of all Civil Government, and of Humane Society, were the Security of Mens Lives, Liberties and Properties, mutual Assistance, and Help, each unto other, and Provision for their common Benefit and Advantage; and where the Fundamental Laws and Constitution of any Government have been wisely adapted unto those Ends, such Countries and Kingdoms have increased in Virtue, Prowess, Wealth and Happiness, whilst others through the want of such excellent Constitutions, or neglect of preserving them, have been a Prey to the Pride, Lust and Cruelty of the most Potent, and the People have had no Assurance of Estates, Liberties or Lives, but from their Grace and Pleasure: They have been many times forced to welter in each others Blood in their Masters quarrel for Dominion, and at best they have served like Beasts of Burden, and by continual, base subserviency to their masters Vices, have lost all sense of true Religion, Virtue and Manhood. 

Our Ancestors have been famous in their Generations for Wisdom, Piety, and courage, in forming and preserving a Body of Laws to secure themselves and their Posterities from Slavery and Oppression, and to maintain their Native Freedoms; to be subject only to the Laws made by their own Consent in their general Assemblies, and to be put in Execution chiefly by themselves, their Officers and Assistants, to be guarded and defended from all Violence and Force, by their own Arms, kept in their own hands, and used at their own charge under their Princes Conduct; entrusting nevertheless an ample Power to their Kings, and other Magistrates, that they may may do all the Good, and enjoy all the Happiness that the largest Soul of man can honestly wish; and carefully providing such means of correcting and punishing their Ministers and Councillors, if they transgressed the Laws, that they might not dare to abuse or oppress the People, or design against their Freedom or Welfare.