March 29, 2011

Elizabeth Windsor-Citizen

She's not a monarch at all. She is just like you and I. 

A citizen.

I am fortunate to have constitutional experts who take the time to write to me, to help me to unravel the illusion (delusion?) that I find myself surrounded by.

The words that follow are from Bob over at the Magna Carta Society. I wanted to share them with you.

Look:

Dear Captain,

"Perhaps your readers might be interested in this.
This country is not about Parliament and the people it is about the people and their elected Monarch. Parliament is no more than an administration and a legislature. The government of the day does not make our laws, it only draws them up and presents them to the Monarch who can then accept them or reject them on the people's behalf, only then is law made.
Parliament is no more then a hired hand with a strictly constrained and limited life and has no powers of its own. Only the Monarch can mount and dissolve a Parliament on the people's behalf. 

The Monarch is the physical embodiment of the people's sovereignty as made clear in the coronation ceremony which is an election, the people have a right to reject the heir apparent and choose a sibling just as the heir to the Throne has the right to reject the office, again as demonstrated at the time of the coronation. The Monarch is the people and the people are the Monarch, it is a marriage, the Monarch is wedded to the people as demonstrated by the wearing of a ring presented on behalf of the people at the coronation ceremony. 

The Monarch is the official Governor of the nation according to the coronation oath. The Monarch is obliged to delegate the authority of governance to a political party of the people's choice but not the power of governance which remains with the Monarch as representing the power of the people. As a delegated authority all decisions put forward by HM government have ultimately to be approved by the Monarch who retains the power of veto on the people's behalf. 

When in 1972 Queen Elizabeth II agreed to surrender the supremacy of the Crown to a foreign power it was an act of abdication for the Crown is supreme or it is but nothing at all.

It follows that as Parliament draws its legitimacy from the Crown since 1972 Parliament has been an unlawful assembly and has acted in a like manner. All of this was confirmed with the signing of the Maastrich Treaty in 1992 when the Queen officially became a citizen of the EU as announced by the then Prime Minister John Major in the House of Commons. No one can be both Monarch and citizen at the same time."  (Emphasis is mine. CR)



The email naturally raises a couple of questions, so I wrote back and asked Bob the following:

Q1. If the Queen is reduced to citizen, then what is the point of Lawful Rebellion? Revoking my allegiance to her is rendered meaningless. I might as well revoke allegiance to my next door neighbour, or you, or any other citizen of the UK.

A1. The Queen herself revoked our allegiance when she betrayed her coronation oath and so broke the contract she had entered into with the people.

Q2. Is she aware that she is no longer the Monarch?

A2. This I cannot answer as she has refused on a number of occasions to tell us. We wrote to the Queen, two Prime Ministers, the Attorney General, the Lord Chancellor, the Office of Constitutional Affairs and the Arch Bishop of Canterbury with this simple question: is the Queen still Constitutional Sovereign Monarch as she was on the day of her coronation in 1953? We wrote several times and never receives as much as an acknowledgement. Perhaps she sees herself as a suzerain monarch such as they have in Europe, but in this country we have no provision for such a monarch, we have constitutional monarchs only.

Q3. Is there any evidence of John Major uttering these words? Hansard, maybe?

A3. As far as I am aware John Majors boast following the signing of the Maastricht Treaty in 1992 was in Hansard but by now it may have been removed, it was certainly well noted at the time. His announcement was treasonous as it 'imagined the death of the Monarch' (the job being for life). His statement was also perjury yet he has never been impeached for either, indeed, the Queen later honoured him.

Q4. How many people know that the Queen has no more power than they do themselves?

A4. Most of the nation are unaware, I should think.

Bob added this information when he answered my questions:

"When the Queen took the coronation oath she swore to uphold our laws and customs, not foreign laws dressed up and made out to be our laws. The Queen is an expert on our Constitution and its constraints, it is a major part of her job. When she commanded her Prime Minister and plenipotentiaries Home and Ripon to sign up to the Treaty of Rome she must have known it was in complete contravention of our Constitution especially as the issue had been widely and openly debated in both Houses during the 1960s. Concerns about the constitutional consequences had been openly expressed in both Houses, indeed Lord Kilmuir wrote an open letter to PM Heath pointing out the constitutional consequences of signing up to the Treaty, as Kilmuir was a Privy Councillor at the time it is inconceivable that he would not have advised the Queen also. The instant Heath put pen to paper he dismissed himself from office, yet he was never impeached, nor was he impeached when he lied in the House of Commons in order to get the signing ratified by the passing of the European Communities Act 1972, in fact he was later honoured by the Queen.  It was quite obvious to anyone who studied the issue that the ultimate intention of the European project was anything but a mere trading arrangement despite the spurious title of Common Market, it was about total political unity, the making of a country called Europe which necessitated the destruction of the sovereign independence of the nations involved and in this the Queen could have been in no doubt.  Sovereignty is indivisible, it means complete autonomy, yet the politicians were claiming at the time that it could be shared. Most people have been fooled into believing that the Monarch has no powers, those who are acquainted with the Coronation Oath Act 1688 and the Bill of Rights 1689 know that at the time of the coronation the Monarch is vested by the people with enormous powers to ensure that no such event as this could take place. It is for this reason that the monarch is made Commander in chief of the Armed Forces who swear allegiance to the Monarch and so to the people.
Should a Parliament become despotic the monarch has the power to close it down and an Army to back the decision."

Fascinating stuff, I think you'd agree. And all of it done to cheering crowds. A clueless population.

My thanks to Bob for educating us.

If you have questions, fire away, and I will struggle with the answers. 

CR.

24 comments:

Groompy Tom said...

"to help me to unravel the illusion (delusion?) that I find myself surrounded by."

Bite your tongue, Captain. You are not delusional in the slightest and you damn well know it. It is they who are deluded. Deluded if they think they can continue their smoke and mirrors antics forever, deluded if they think there will not be severe retribution when the game is up.

Great post anyway, I'm off to shove it under my dear old dad's nose. He still believes in his Queen you see and I do love to shatter his illusions.

Harry Hook said...

http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/Queenandthelaw/HowUKandEUlawaffectTheQueen.aspx

How UK and EU law affect The Queen
Queen and the Law

People often wonder whether laws apply to The Queen, since they are made in her name.

Given the historical development of the Sovereign as the 'Fount of Justice', civil and criminal proceedings cannot be taken against the Sovereign as a person under UK law. Acts of Parliament do not apply to The Queen in her personal capacity unless they are expressly stated to do so.

However, The Queen is careful to ensure that all her activities in her personal capacity are carried out in strict accordance with the law.

Under the Crown Proceedings Act (1947), civil proceedings can be taken against the Crown in its public capacity (this usually means proceedings against government departments and agencies, as the elected Government governs in The Queen's name).

In the case of European Union law, laws are enforced in the United Kingdom through the United Kingdom's national courts. There is therefore no machinery by which European law can be applied to The Queen in her personal capacity.

However, it makes no difference that there is no such mechanism, as The Queen will in any event scrupulously observe the requirements of EU law.

As a national of the United Kingdom, The Queen is a citizen of the European Union, but that in no way affects her prerogatives and responsibilities as the Sovereign.

Anonymous said...

Therefore Her Royal Highness, Queen Elizabeth II, is a triator to Her Oath and Her People. Correct?

Steve

Harry Hook said...

YES...

Captain Ranty said...

Harry,

I am checking on an answer to your earlier post.

Will reply soonest.

CR.

Captain Ranty said...

Steve,

What Harry said. (at 21:31).

CR.

Captain Ranty said...

Groompy,

Give him a bit of a warning first!

CR.

Just Woke Up said...

Got there before me Harry!!! I'm doing my bit to get this news spread far and wide.

This is a public statement. She CANNOT be a sovereign monarch and a citizen or a British national.

I also have a letter from Henry Bellingham MP, Minister for Africa, The UN, Foreign Territories and Conflict Areas (what the fuck is that all about??) stating that her role as constitutional head of the UK hasn't changed. Reeeeeallllly Henry??!! Her formal title is Queen Elizabeth II of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Realllllyyyy Henry??? Kind of contradicts the Royal Titles Act which hasn't been amended to accommodate the actual change in her title since the 70s. I wonder what those countries where she is head of state think of their constitutional head being a mere citizen of the EUSSR now?

Lots more I could write here as its something I have been working on for some months but the information is out there and with this royal statement the cat is firmly out the fucking bag.

Note the strange emphasis on her still being above the law somehow. Makes you think that there may be crimes that the royals don't want to stand trial for. Land thefts? Corruption? Indeed some of the people that certain royals have been doing business with merits attention. Despite the desperate protestations of the royal household the simple fact is she is a citizen and therefore is NOT above the law personally. I've ploughed through a fair amount of the cock waffle that is the Lisbon Treaty and don't see any exemptions specifically for Lizzie.

By the way I too sent of a plethora of FOIs to government depts, Attorney General, Royal household and the reluctance to answer the simple question "do we have a sovereign monarch and what is her formal title" gave me the answer I knew was correct. If the answer was YES they would have just said YES.

Have fun with this one guys. Its where I am focussing my efforts to prove treason is being carried out.

Essentially we have an abandoned throne now so where do the law courts get their authority now? And the police, and the bank of england, and the MPs, and both houses, and the councils, and ......well its a long list...

Just Woke Up said...

By the way it appeared on the royal website in early January...

Anonymous said...

I feel sick. I swore an oath to the Queen when I joined he Army in '81. Still, as an Englishman all royalty after King Harold is dodgey to me.

Steve

Captain Ranty said...

Steve,

You are not alone.

I took the shilling in 1980.

I was gob-smacked when Bob's email arrived this evening.

CR.

James Higham said...

When in 1972 Queen Elizabeth II agreed to surrender the supremacy of the Crown to a foreign power it was an act of abdication for the Crown is supreme or it is but nothing at all.

That's really the bottom line, isn't it?

Harry Hook said...

Notice that it states twice...

"However, The Queen is careful to ensure that all her activities in her personal capacity are carried out in strict accordance with the law."

and

"However, it makes no difference that there is no such mechanism, as The Queen will in any event scrupulously observe the requirements of EU law."

Which says to me that the Queen is keeping her nose clean and doing as she is told, so as not to draw any attention to the change of circumstances...

NewsboyCap said...

Captain,

"If the Queen is reduced to citizen, then what is the point of Lawful Rebellion? Revoking my allegiance to her is rendered meaningless".

As you well know she would not have seen your affidavit, but TPTB will have.So they will have your details, they will know your position,your rebellious stand is still LAW. Moreover if she colluded with the traitors Heath,Major,Bliar and Brown then Lawful Rebellion is the only option for every body in the nation.

Anonymous said...

So the Queen's a fraud - and Prince Charles a charlatan?

Has anyone pointed this out to the MSM yet or is it remaining secret?

Does it mean they will have to abandon the castle and live elsewhere now?

Can everything Parliament did since 1972 be null and void?

It raises many questions.

Magna Carta Society Blog said...

Regarding the question of where the Courts and police get their authority from, the answer is that the UK was made into a corporation during WWII and it was never resored to a constitutional monarchy. That is the reason why the courts etc were also made into corporations. There are contracts between them but not with the people. The truth is getting out.

Regards, John Hurst.

defender said...

William Windsor's wedding seems to be exciting many, including this lot.


OFFICIAL ANNOUNCEMENT:

On 29th April 2011, what is probably one of the most anticipated events in recent years will be due to take place at Westminster Abbey; Prince William and Kate Middleton, will soon exchange matrimonial vows, in the presence of a global audience.

Unfortunately, Britain's continued interference in Muslim lands is showing no signs of abating; the plundering of resources, the murdering of innocent (Muslim) men, women and children and the forced indoctrination of the satanic democratic creed have become hallmarks of a brutal regime led by a very brutal dictator.

In the backdrop of all this, we find that one of the biggest advocates of British imperialism, Flight Lieutenant Prince William, wishes to enjoy an extravagant wedding ceremony, ironically at the expense of the tax-payer.

His direct involvement with the murderous British military and eagerness to inherit the reigns of a kingdom built on blood and colonialism clearly demonstrate what type of legacy he wishes to leave.

In light of this, sincere Muslims have decided to organise a forceful demonstration, to once again highlight that as long Britain continues in its quest to occupy Muslim land and wage war against the religion of God (Allah) that we too shall continue in our efforts to undermine their regime and condemn all of their representatives, military or otherwise.

We strongly advise Prince William and his Nazi sympathiser, to withdraw from the crusader British military and give up all affiliation to the tyrannical British Empire.

We promise that should they refuse, then the day which the nation has been dreaming of for so long will become a nightmare and that it will inshaa'allah (God willing) eclipse the protests in Barking, Downing Street and the events of November 11.


http://www.muslimsagainstcrusades.com/

Captain Ranty said...

I asked Bob for his opinion on the information that Harry posted.

This is what he sent:

"It is accepted that the Monarch can do no wrong, but that is no more than a convention and it is also accepted that convention has no force in law. Should a Monarch do wrong such as breaking the people's law it would amount to a breach of contract and the breaking of the coronation oath which would be an act of abdication. It is also accepted in English law that:
"Be ye ever so mighty the law is above ye".

I note with interest below the statement that the Queen observes EU law. No doubt they are claiming that EU law is now the law of the British people which is strictly not true as EU law has been forced upon the British people without their consent. What it reveals is that the Queen now obediently serves the EU as opposed to the British people who elected her to uphold their laws.

If the Queen has accepted a status of citizenship she is obliged to accept and abide by the obligations of that citizenship and as it is a foreign citizenship there is no way she could have the freedom to fully exercise the prerogatives and duties of a sovereign monarch. No one can be both monarch and citizen at the same time and their can be no sovereign head of state in a nation which is no longer sovereign.

Such statements as this are a fudge to back the charade created to fool the people into believing that nothing has changed. EU laws and directives now effect every aspect of our lives, laws made in a foreign land by unelected unaccountable people which are then foisted upon the British people under the scurrilous claim that they are British laws. A smoke and mirrors scam of the most treacherous kind.

Best Wishes, Bob."

newy said...

What a load of shite!.. lol..

The Queen is Catholic. She holds office of queen for the pope. All kings & queens throughout history have held office at the say of the pope. The church of England is catholic in every way but name.

We the people are nothing but slaves.. We have no status in this legal world to do or say anything.

The constitution is a contract between Queenie, her family and the pope.. That is all. The people were never party to the contract.. the magna carta 1215 is a contract between the barons and the king/queen.. Not one slave was ever mentioned.. or has any say in anything... We are SLAVES under the current system.. nothing more and nothing less..

Captain Ranty said...

Newy,

If you want to stay a slave, please do so.

I have had enough. I am a slave no more.

CR.

Anonymous said...

Question, If you was the queen, would you sign your country away ?

I would not, youv'e got too much to lose.

Captain Ranty said...

Anon,

We are not talking about a normal woman here. She is completely disconnected from the world around her.

Teams of lackeys ensure that it stays that way.

She is unaware and unbelievably wealthy. Why should she even care?

CR.

Anonymous said...

This is a long read from the Parliamentary record about secret prisoners, secret courts and hyper-injunctions but well worth reading if you have the time.
Rgds,
Grumps

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm110317/halltext/110317h0001.htm

"Tell It As It Is" said...

The position of The British Constitution Group is that the Queen is no longer Sovereign and thus the people's sovereignty is no longer represented in parliament... making it illegitimate. In the absence of legitimate governance, we are creating our own... it is a process - building our numbers to achieve our objective... we have decklared a target of 1 million rebellious Britons, a practical number for alternative governance to be effective... thereinafter we are pretty sure the rest of the country would join us as we show by example how good governance should and can be done.

Sovereignty belongs to the people... but we must at least defend it or we will loose it.

If you want to help... join us in lawful rebellion and help us TAKE back control of our county.

It's all about NUMBERS - when there are more of us than there are of them... WE WIN.

Roger Hayes
Chairman
The British Constitution Group
www.thebcgroup.org.uk