Lincolnshire Voice

The History of the Royal Assent
In the beginning there was no parliament, however, British Kings were not dictators - they all used advisors. These advisors made sure that the King did not rule outside the law. The Anglo Saxon Kings had the Witan, made up of the Ealdorman and Thanes. Later the Norman French Kings had a Parliament made up of Barons and the Knights from the Shires. For a long time Parliament met where the King was in the country, before it became settled at the Palace of Westminster. All our early Kings and Queens were in Parliament when it met and were able to exert considerable influence on the actions of Parliament. The Stuarts believed they ruled by divine right. We know what happened to them. King William III attended cabinet meetings and the House of Lords.

Queen Anne, like William, attended cabinet meetings and the House of Lords; as a result they both had a very clear idea of what was happening both with government and in the country.

After the death of Queen Anne we had King George I - he spoke only german and because he had no idea what was being said, he attended neither cabinet meetings nor the House of Lords which allowed the politicians to govern in his name with the King having no say what was done in his name.

King George II spoke english but was discouraged by the politicians from attending cabinet meetings and the Lords. Indeed he complained that his ministers were Kings in his Kingdom. King George II was effectively prevented from carrying out his role as King.

King George III was badly educated, his main interest being farming, about which he was knowledgeable. He also suffered from mental ill health and for a large part of his reign was not competent to govern. This gave the politicians purely as a result of accident the idea that they could have power without the sovereign having any or atleast not a lot of say in what government did. This political power, and it is power taken without permission, not authority granted under the law, which makes government believe that those in the House of Commons can do anything they like whether the Sovereign or the people like it or not. This is the situation we have today!

Nationality
The best description of nationality was given by King Edward III in his statute 25E.3 de natis ultra mare. Edward ruled that everyone born under an English King is English, if you were born overseas of an English father you are English, if you are born of an English mother and an alien father you are an alien. If an Englishman goes into the country of an enemy or into a friendly country and refuses to return to England on command of the King, the children born there are alien.

Allegiance
Who owes allegiance to the King? First, everyone who is born under the King, or who is born outside England to an English Father. Secondly, those who accept English Nationality, thirdly, anyone who comes to England to trade or otherwise who comes under the protection of the King whilst they are here. So a French merchant trading in England would owe allegiance to the King as long as he was in England. A French soldier who was here as an invader would owe no dity of allegiance to the King, but would require the Kings permission to land in England. Everyone over the age of 12 was required to swear an oath of allegiance to the King. It is believed this oath taking was started by King Arthur, and go back into the mists of time. The later Acts of Supremacy add to but do not replace the oath of allegiance. It is English common law that the King cannot resign his Crown nor can those estates in Parliament withdraw their homage. If the King was no King if he resigned then those in Parliament were no parliament if they withdraw their homage. If the throne was usurped the rightful heir would still be king though the usurper would be King in fact. Parliament has no right to take the Crown from the next in line and appoint another as King. To do that is to usurp the Crown. The 1689 Declaration of Rights made up of the representatives of the people, were able to remove the Stuart line because the will of the people is supreme over parliament and the King.

Parliament
In Stockdale vs. Hansard 1837, Stockdale, a book publisher, was libelled in the House of Commons and that libel was published in Hansard. Chief Justice Denman found in favour of Stockdale and awarded him £600 damages. Judge Patterson giving the opinion of the other 8 judges in the case ruled that "in the beginning parliament met under one roof with the Lords one side and the Commons the other with the King at the Head. At that time parliament was the highest court in the land and could not be sued in any other court. But for their own reasons the Houses choose to sit under different roofs, The House of Lords is where the Law Lords and the King sit, and it is the highest court in the land. But the House of Commons are in no way a court of law, and the common man must be able to sue the House of Commons in any of the courts in the land for wrongs done to him by the actions of the House of Commons."

Now that the Law Lords have been removed from the House of Lords, the House of Lords is no longer the highest court in the land, that role now falls to the Supreme Court. Following the spirit of Judge Patterson's ruling it, in my opinion, means the common man can now sue parliament for wrongs done to him by the actions of parliament as a whole.

Conclusion
In England we have a very good and ancient Constitution, built by the trials and tribulations of our forefathers, who experienced on a number of occasions despotic rule, which their desire to live as freemen gave them the strength to overcome. On each occasion they set in place protections to prevent despotic rule. Today we have despotic rule by the House of Commons, who claim authority, even over Her Majesty the Queen. They have withdrawn their homage to Her Majesty and are under the common law of England no Parliament but foul and base traitors. We must, like our forefathers, find the strength to overcome this evil, and make no mistake it is evil - they are destroying a legal system and constitution built around the teachings of the Holy Bible. The House of Commons, according to Andrew Dismore MP's secretary Dr Egan, there is an interesting discussion going on as to whether by passing a law they (Parliament) can do away with the Rule of Law. Why would anyone in their right mind contemplate such a thing, let alone discuss it? What are we left with if they remove the Rule of Law? We are left with satanic law, "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of law" So if your 12 year old child is raped it is not a crime! When your old mother is burgled and beaten to a pulp, it is not a crime. When a bank is robbed and a cashier is shot to death it is not a crime. Make no mistake this is what our politicians have in mind for us, if only so that they can continue to rob us blind with their expenses.

The End

Bibliography and further reading
Adams, G.B., and Stevens, H.M. eds., (1921), ‘Select Documents of English Constitutional History.’ London: Macmillan and Co. Ltd.

Ashworth, P.A. ed., (1896), ‘English constitutional history: From the Teutonic conquest to the present time.’ London: Stevens and Haynes.

Bede, (731), ‘A History of the Church and the English people.’ Translated by L. Sherley-Price, and revised by R.E. Latham, 1974. Middlesex: Penguin Books Ltd.

Blackies, ‘Blackie’s comprehensive history of England.’ (Vol.5) London: Blackie and Son Ltd. Figure 12.

Cassell, ‘Illustrated History of England’ (Vol.1), London: Cassell, Petter and Galpin. Figures 1-11.

Elton, G.R. ed., (1972), ’The Tudor Constitution: documents and commentary.’ Cambridge: University Press.

Feiling, K., (1959), ‘A History of England: From the coming of the English to 1918.’ London: Macmillan and Co. Green, J.R, (1902), ‘A short history of the English people.’ (Vol.1-4), London: Macmillan and Co. Ltd.

Keynes, S., Lapidge, M., (2004), ‘Alfred the Great: Asser’s Life of King Alfred and other contemporary sources.’ London: Penguin books.

Macaulay, Lord., (1895), ‘The History of England: From the accession of James II.’ (Vol.1), London: Longman’s, Green and Co. Maitland, F.W., (1908), ‘The Constitutional History of England.’ Cambridge: University Press.

Robertson, C.G. Sir., (1947), ‘Select Statutes, Cases and Documents to illustrate English constitutional history, 1660-1832.’ 8th Ed. London: Methuen and Co. Ltd.

Trevelyan, G.M., (1934), ‘History of England.’ London: Longman’s, Green and Co.