Response from the Constitutional Policy Team and Albert's reply

  • 1 Replies

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


Offline the leveller

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • 4128
  • +75/-0
Letter to Lucinda Mear re The Royal Prerogative

Lucinda Mear                                                                                          Albert Burgess
 House of Commons Library                                                                        15 Parliament Road
 Parliament and Constitution Centre                                                                 Thame
 House of Commons                                                                                         South Oxfordshire
 London                                                                                                             OX9 3TE

Ref The Royal Prerogative

Dear Lucinda
 I have been reading your 2009 paper on the Prerogative written by you and Oonagh Gay.

Historically going back into the mists of time or as Sir Edward Coke CJ described it before time of memory, the King was made by the common law, and to allow him to function in that roll the common law bestowed open him certain rights and privileges over and above those of the common man.

These Rights and privileges we refer to as the Royal Prerogative, the King used this prerogative to seek advice from his most experienced subjects these in Anglo Saxon times were the ealdormen, these advisors became the basis to the House of Lords in the time of the Normans.

King Edward I used his prerogative to invite the Knights and Burgesses to his Parliament in 1297 because he thought it would be less troublesome to collect taxes if the common man had a say in how much the tax should be.

It did not take the Knights and Burgesses long to realise they could with the threat of withholding tax obtain advantages for themselves and the common man as a whole, this was the beginning of the power grab the common man went on right from the start of his inclusion in government. This power grab has continued to date with the theft of the Royal Prerogative and the destruction of the House of Lords to a state where they are no longer able to carry out their duty as assigned to them by the common law and the theft of Royal authority from the second Queen Anne died in 1714 culminating with the complete theft of the Royal authority from King George V when he came to the Throne.

You talk about the removal of the Stuarts as though this removed sections of the prerogative from the King and transferred them to Parliament when in fact the Declaration of Rights 28th January 1689 did no such thing it merely restored the situation according to Professor Taswell Langmede in his history of the English Constitution 1876 it restored the situation to what it had been before the Tudors and Stuarts usurped the Throne.

English Kings from 886 approximately when King Alfred codified the law and placed himself under the law have always had restrictions placed upon them by law. The first bad Norman King was William II ( Rufus) who was removed with an arrow through the heart. King Henry II was forced to reissue Alfred's law as the 1100 Charter of Liberties, the Kingdom rebelled against King John who was ruling outside the law and forced him to reissue the Charter of Liberties as the Great Charter of 1215 Edward II again exceeded his rights under law and was disposed of with a red hot poker up his arse. Henry VIII was an arrogant bully who ruled outside the law and executed any one who argued. The Stuarts you have dealt with. English Kings have always been part hereditary part elected it has only been since William and Mary were crowned as the nations choice having accepted the terms of the Declaration of Rights a reissue of Alfred's law that a Knight in full armour has not ridden into Westminster Abbey thrown a mail Gauntlet on the ground and challenged any foul and base traitor who disputes the right of this Prince/Princess to become King/Queen to step outside and dispute the matter.

You mention Dicey I have studied the history of English Constitutional and Common Law for the past 8 years and in my opinion when it comes to the constitution neither Dicey or Jennings have the faintest idea of the constitution they are exceeded in their foolishness only by Professor Vernon Bogdanor who advised Blair and taught Cameron which is why we are in the state we are in today. The authorities on the Prerogative are Sir Mathew Hale CJ 1713, Sir William Blackstone CJ 1768 and more recent Joseph Chitty whose work was published 1820 and is the reference book used by Parliament today.

You claim the scope of the prerogative is difficult to determine I beg to differ it extends only so far as it benefits the subject as long as it does this any action of the Kings is legal and lawful, if the King acts in a way which is detrimental to even one of his subjects the King is acting outside the law. So the prerogative of the assent was exceeded when it was granted for the bedroom tax for example which has harmed a number of Her Majesties subjects and the 2002 Police Reform Act which purports to grant powers to dispense with penalties for crime when it allows the police to apply to the IPCC for a dispensation to allow them not to investigate an allegation of criminal action on the part of a constable. All dispensations are outlawed for all time by the 1689 B ill of Rights which incorporates the 1689 Declaration of Rights. This effectively places the police above the law. It also removes the words Our Sovereign Lady the Queen from the police oath of attestation, this removes her style and honour as a fully Sovereign Queen. This is treason contrary to the 1848 Treason Felony Act. It imagines Her Majesties death as a fully Sovereign Queen which is treason contrary to the 1351 Treason Act.

Queen Anne was not the last Sovereign to refuse the assent Queen Victoria refused the assent to a bill on homosexuality because it mentioned lesbianism and she did not believe women would do those things to each other, the bill was rewritten with all reference to lesbianism removed, King Edward VII refused the assent to the Parliament Act on the grounds it was unconstitutional and removed a protection from his subjects, and he ordered Asquith to go to the country. After Asquith had lied his way around the country he was re-elected and Edward VII in his speech at the opening of Parliament the King stated the only reason he was doing this was because his ministers told him he had to.

You mention "it is a long established law that Parliament can override and replace the prerogative by statute." I would be interested in seeing that law in hard copy in an old book on the Prerogative or the constitutional or common law. Without the authority of the common law of the prerogative no changes to the Prerogative can be made. The only body able to rule on the prerogative is not Parliament but a full meeting of the Estates of England comprising the Lords Spiritual, the Lords Temporal and the Commonality of England. It was the Estates of England which met John at Runnymede, and comprised the 1689 Convention which produced the 1689 Declation of Rights. It was a convention not a Parliament nor was it a convention Parliament it was a convention of the Estates of England the highest law giving body in the land able to hire and fire Kings and Parliaments.

The common law made the King and gave the King authorities not granted to other men in the form of the Royal Prerogative. The King is required to maintain the Crown and hand it to those who follow on in the shape he found it or better. (the Estates of England) meeting in 1366 to determine the legality or otherwise of the surrendering of England to the Pope in 1213 by King John. The Estates of England declared John actions illegal as England did not belong to John he only held it in trust for those who follow on. Therefore King Edward III was not a vassal King to Rome, and the rent for the Crown paid by John and stopped by King Henry III was not owed and was not to be paid. This decided the issue for all time. Making Every treaty signed by ministers with the EEC/EU treasonable by there very nature. Her Majesty being refused permission by the Estates of England from repeating King Johns crime.

So as neither the common law nor the Estates of England have removed any of the Royal Prerogatives from the King, and the King cannot by established law surrender any of his powers to govern, so the King cannot surrender any of the Prerogative to any one or any institution.

Therefore in law Her Majesty as the supreme governor of England from which all her other titles prerogatives and supremacies stem continues to hold all her prerogatives intact and ministers who purport to use them commit treason contrary to the Common Law and the 1351 Treason Act.

I would appreciate the opportunity to come and discuss this with you or better still talk to your entire department.

I am enclosing my book on the constitution which I would like you to catalogue for the House of Commons library, it has been catalogued by Cambridge University Library.
 Respectfully submitted

 Albert Burgess.

« Last Edit: October 30, 2014, 02:08:35 AM by »


Offline the leveller

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • 4128
  • +75/-0
Response from The Constitutional Policy Team and Albert's reply
« Reply #1 on: October 29, 2014, 10:24:27 PM »
The Constitutional Policy Team                                                      Albert Burgess

4th Floor  Orange Zone                                                                   15 Parliament Road

1 Horse Guards Road                                                                      Thame

London                                                                                            South Oxfordshire

SW1A 2HQ                                                                                     OX9 3TE




Ref The Royal Prerogative



Thank you for the text book answer which is unadulterated shite, which I am sure government really expect us to believe.


Neither the Declaration or Bill of Rights 1689 changed the use of the prerogative in any way whatsoever. It merely restated the position as it has always been for England's Kings, since King Alfred codified the law in approximately 886 when he published the Dome last seen in the reign of King Edward IV.


You state the Bill of Rights established the supremacy of Parliament by which you undoubtedly mean the supremacy of the House of Commons as the elected chamber, I am unaware of by what slight of hand you reach this opinion because the 1689 Bill of Rights makes no such claim. You are apparently unaware that after King George III had conducted a 20 year running battle with the Commons as to where Sovereignty lay with him as the anointed King or with the Commons as the elected chamber and after an impassioned Speech by Lord Chatham a vote was taken and the King won the vote and by Parliamentary vote it was established the supreme authority in this Kingdom lay with the anointed King. Indeed any other result would have imagined the death of the King as a fully Sovereign King and every member of Parliament in either House who voted in favour would have stood trial for treason contrary to the 1351 Treason Act. Which as an aside is still fully in force and which your reply to me contravenes.     


Kings who have exceeded these restrictions King Alfred placed upon himself were removed. The Last Being King James II.


Now let me repeat my questions and this time you really should consult the Kingdoms best legal brains as they obviously do not reside in your office.



When exactly was the Royal Prerogative transferred from the anointed King to the Prime Minister?



Why was it considered necessary to transfer the Royal Prerogative from the King to the Prime Minister?






Who exactly Authorised  this transfer of Royal Authority from the anointed King to the Prime Minster?


Your reply to me constitutes clear evidence of treason contrary to the 1351 Treason Act, I trust that thought should concentrate your minds sufficiently to answer my questions.


As you do so ask yourself this question.

Do I like the Prime Minister so much that I am prepared to hang with him for treason against my anointed Queen? If the answer is yes I would strongly recommend you dispose of all you own as the state will confiscate it all on your conviction.


Oh and by the way you should not consider this a threat to your personnel safety it is merely a statement of the law as it currently is, and has been since 1351

Respectfully Submitted for your very careful consideration.




Albert Burgess




« Last Edit: October 30, 2014, 09:59:19 PM by the leveller »

Share this topic...
In a forum
In a site/blog

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk