On the impudence of Parliament

Just where does Parliament get the idea that it has the authority to change the laws of royal succession?  I think the Queen should rearrange Parliament; that would be just as legitimate.  The monarchy is not Parliament’s creature.  Hard to believe these Whigs used to go on about how important checks and balances are.  Today, Parliament thinks itself omnipotent.

One can have democracy or one can have constitutional government, but not both.

6 Responses

  1. By the statute 6 Anne, c. 7, if any person shall maliciously, advisedly, and directly, by writing or printing, maintain and affirm that any other person hath any right or title to the crown of this realm otherwise than according to the Act of Settlement, or that the kings of this realm with the authority of parliament are not able to make laws and statutes to bind the crown and the descent thereof, such person shall be guilty of high treason…

  2. Hello Mr. Paterson-Seymour,

    Thank you for citing the actual law. That’s an unusual phrase, “the kings of this realm with the authority of parliament”. It seems to state that succession laws can be changed only by the king and parliament acting in concert, and it implies that the king officially makes the initiative. Good. Queen Elizabeth should tell parliament and their democratic rabble to piss off. And, being a non-Englishman, I can say, without risking the penalties for high treason, that parliament should have no say in this at all if the monarchy wants to maintain its integrity.

  3. The only problem with her Majesty telling the parliament to bugger off is that she would then have a full Jacobin style revolution upon her. She would be dragged out of Buckingham Palace by the leftist barbarian hordes that basicly control the United Kingdom and do goodness knows what to her.

  4. Hi Michael,

    Thanks for bringing me back to the real world. Not pleasant, but must be done.

    By the way, it really annoys me that the BBC is conducting polls on whether the monarchy should be changed or even abolished. It’s all a not-very-subtle way to stick the idea into the minds of Englishmen that they can dispose of their sovereign as they please. Isn’t it obvious that, if the government is going to have its own television station, it should be controled by the monarch (as the repository branch of government) rather than Parliament (the legislature)?

  5. Yes I agree entirely about the right of the monarchy to call the shots over the government and it’s departments.

    The BBC is practically the propaganda mouth piece of the left wing Bolsheviks that have usurped the monarchy’s authority and control the country through the parliament. They use the BBC to shove there poisonous ideas and lies down the people’s throats and destroy British with them accordingly.

    I live in one of Her Majesty’s realms which is Australia so I respect and honour the Queen and pray for her conversion to the Catholic faith despite all the obsticles stacked against it. In Australia, we have a state owned television and radio station called ABC. It’s the Australian equivalent to the UK”s BBC so the situation is the same here aswel.

  6. I think the phrase was chosen, because, in the past, parliament had ratified hen VIII’s will leaving the crown to Ed VI, remainder to Mary Tudor, remainder to Eliz I, thus overriding the common law rule that forbad succession by the half-blood. Hence Lady Jane Grey’s claim, on the death of Ed VI: she was his nearest collateral kiinsman of the wholeblood, being of the blopd of the first purchaser (in that case Hen VII)

    The last change was when parliament approved HM King Ed VIII’s Instrument of Abdication

    The more ususal phrase is “The king in parliament,” i.e. king, lords & commons. The enacting cause of all statutes is
    “Be it enacted by the Queen’s most excellent majesty, by and with the advice & consent of the lords spiritual & temporal & the commons in parliament assembled…”

    It is the sovereign who legislates and the two houses who advise & consent, whoever initiates the bill and no court will go behind the Parliament Roll recording the act, in its final form, to look at the parliamentary process, by which the law was voted on, amended, received the Royal Assent &c.

    Queen Anne was the last sovereign to refuse the Royal Assent, with the usual formula “La reyne s’avisera” – the Queen will think about it, which is still used for certain petitions. Nothing so vulgar as a refusal

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: