December 26, 2011

On Sovereignty

In the last ten days or so, I have been privy to a conversation.

The conversation was between three or four people whose opinion I value greatly. It concerned Magna Carta, parliament, the monarch, and their respective roles today. To most people it would seem academic: after all, who really cares about who has supremacy over who, and what difference does it make anyway?

It makes a great deal of difference to me, and to all of you.

So I thought I would share the latest email with you. You don't have to have seen all the others leading up to this one, but if you feel the need, let me know and I will pop them on here for you.

I did not join the conversation because my knowledge is vastly inferior to the people that were emailing each other. I consider myself lucky to have "overheard" the discussion. I keep telling people that the monarch abdicated in 1972. That is referred to in the squadron leaders opinion.

Here you go:

Further to my submission below herewith are comments from my most knowledgeable and understanding friend and MCS colleague Sqn Ldr David Bourne who is particularly adept at encouraging those who would destroy this country in disclosing their own duplicity.     BL. 

"In addition to the present discussion about the Magna Carta I would remind everyone that Edward I in 1297, while confirming the Magna Carta, he decreed that the Magna Carta was to be regarded as the  Common Law in perpetuity. The fact that the Magna Carta imposes limitations only upon our Sovereign is today ignored by Parliament despite the fact that all the members of both Houses swear allegiance to our Sovereign to uphold her in her position and duties as our Sovereign and thus accept the limitations upon them that our Constitution imposes upon her. They do that to uphold her power to give them the authority to carry out their duties which are codified in The Code of Conduct for Members of Parliament  and a similar code for Peers of the Realm. 
The Codes can be found at  under the heading “MPs, Lords and Offices”. If you read the Codes you will see that they too are ignored, particularly the requirement for “Selflessness” which involves a warning that to seek personal financial gain is not allowed on their part or for their family or friends, in the execution of their duties. Parliament’s booklet “An Introduction to Parliament” describes, inside the back cover, the powers of the Monarch which are the Royal Prerogatives, which, when in the hands of the Sovereign, were a safeguard from the possible usurpation of these powers by others such as the members of both Houses.  However it says that these powers are now exercised by her Ministers and she has only theoretical powers. At no time in the Coronation Oath did she swear that her powers were only theoretical. She swore that she would govern us in fact not in theory.
When I asked her in 2005/6 whether she was still as Sovereign then, as she most certainly had been at the completion of the Coronation, she passed the question on to the Department for Constitutional Affairs(DCA) without giving a  positive reply as to her Sovereignty. The DCA, without reply, passed it on to the Privy Council who said, in reply, that they could only deal with facts and could not answer questions which involve Constitutional Law as that had to be left to the Courts. But they are her Courts and they are established by the fact that she is our Sovereign which gives her the power to set up those Courts to dispense the justice that she promised us in her Coronation Oath. Thus neither the Queen, the DCA nor the Privy Council were prepared to state that  she was still Sovereign which has to be an acknowledgement that she has been stripped of our Sovereignty, which we, the British People, embodied in her for her lifetime at her Coronation.
Thus there has been an imagination of her death which is an act of High Treason which we might expect she would recognise and see that those involved were brought to justice under the Law of Treason 1351 which is still extant. However knowledge of the Law of Treason is no longer required by law students and you will not find it mentioned in modern law books. Thus that law is ignored by the legal profession despite the requirement that we all owe a duty of allegiance to the Sovereign, who provides our protection, and that the breaking of that allegiance is the essence of treason. You will find a comprehensive description of the criminal offence in Lord Halsbury’s Laws of England Vol11. Treason is at the head of all crime and was a capital offence involving the death penalty until 1999, then reduced to life imprisonment.
Of course if the Sovereign has agreed to accept mediatisation, that is give up all her constitutional powers but to continue merely as a powerless figure head, then she will have, in effect abdicated, as did her uncle Edward VIII in 1936. If our Sovereign Powers were then surrendered to the EEC/EU in 1972 then there is no need to protect the Sovereign with a law against treason as we now have no Sovereign to protect. It will also mean that there is now no succession to the Throne as becoming Sovereign involved the passing of our Sovereignty from the dead or abdicated Sovereign to the next rightful Heir to the Throne. Those who saw “The King’s Speech” will have seen both those events enacted in that film and the acknowledged transfer in those witnessing the event. If our Sovereignty is with the EU it is unlikely that they will give it back for the Succession to continue.
 For them to do so would be for the EU to agree for us to leave that union which is most unlikely. I doubt that the Scots will loan us the Stone of Scone for the day to complete the Coronation Chair which was constructed on the order of Edward I. at any future Coronation. Our present system of government is now called a Parliamentary Democracy when back at the Queen’s Coronation it was a Constitutional Monarchy. When was the change made and under what Act of Parliament which was given the Royal Assent? The words travesty and charade spring to mind. At least Cameron and company have got £34million for our Harriers which is exactly the agreed Civil List cost for next year for the Queen. Did she agree to go without that defence force and have the money instead?  DB."

Let me know what you think.

UPDATE @ 19:16

Thanks to DAD in the comments for this:

Regulars will recall that I blogged on the written version of this a couple of months ago.



Anonymous said...

It's a strange one Ranty.

When the present Monarch dies or stands down will the successor take the same oath as Lizzy did.

There's a lot of EU sewage to go under the bridge in the near future but I do feel that our constitution, and how it will be respected, regarding our relationship with the EU, must surely come to the fore.

Surely the successor can't go through a solemn ceremonial knowing that every word they utter is a completely hollow sham.

Captain Ranty said...


That's exactly what I was thinking.

If the Coronation Oath changes, then so do all the others: the Armed Services, the police, the judiciary, and the Oath of every public servant. (Probably a myriad of others too).

It changes everything.

Will we all sleep through those fundamental changes as well?


david said...

'Surely the successor can't go through a solemn ceremonial knowing that every word they utter is a completely hollow sham.'

Wanna a bet? Any heir would definitely (and knowingly) uphold any sham in return for continued privilege and public money. E.G. Charles - in any other walk of life he'd probably have been an abject failure. 500 years ago he'd certainly have been a willing puppet sovereign. Besides, I doubt any one would take him seriously as king, then or now. If he ascends, I would anticipate the emergence of many more would be freemen. In any event the shit will probably hit the fan. Maybe resulting in a republic. Wouldn't this disallow the right of freeman status?

F***W*T TW****R said...

Can't imagine the plant whisperer ascending.
CR, posted the email on Defenders of the Crown and the british monarchy pages on fb.
I dont suppose it'll get through, even if they read it. Just takes one to start asking questions though.

Captain Ranty said...


Fair point.

"Wouldn't this disallow the right of freeman status?"

You are one down from your creator. You have the right to be anything you want to be.

Aside from that, would the Magna Carta be any less significant if we were to become a republic? Parliament had no right to fuck around with MC1215. They can do what they want to MC1297. I don't care about it because MC1297 is a statute.

WRT shit hitting the fan: there was no outrage at her technical abdication in 1972. What makes you think the people would react any differently this time?

Only a few of us have awoken enough to know that the deception exists. The rest won't know unless/until it is broadcast during Jeremy Kyle or EastEnders. Or, heaven forfend, during the Coronation itself.


Captain Ranty said...


I absolutely can imagine that. Who better to "head" the nation than an inept inbred who talks to flowers?

People erect barriers whenever one of us "leaves the reservation". It's easier for them to do that rather than to actually consider that we may be right.


david said...

I believe that in 1972 the Queen had the trust and respect of many millions of her subjects. On the face of it, joining the Common Market was regarded as a good thing by the majority - for economic reasons. There is now clearly a large groundswell of anti EU feeling - more for political reasons. That is, loss of sovereignty and the rise of what will ultimately become total European 'dictatorship'. What perhaps people don't yet realise is that the threat really lies from within. Even if we leave the EU, there is no reason to assume that the underlying problem will be resolved, at least according to our own traditional rules.

Charles, on the other hand, has neither enjoyed popular support nor respect. I can't see how the anti monarchists could effectively hide behind any charade fronted by him (even though they'd consider him to be an ideal frontman). The bloke is clearly unfit for office. As are most of his relatives (possibly excepting his sister). Under him, the monarchy would look even less credible. Maybe that will be crunch time, when the public actually start to question the charade. Something would have to give. One thing seems certain - the public don't trust politicians to protect and serve its interests.

Captain Ranty said...


Again, good points made.

This time, I cannot disagree.

Although I would add that the reason I do my thing is a vain (or stupid, or unobtainable) attempt to draw attention to this exact subject.

Many of my detractors believe that I am doing it to dodge traffic tickets, or taxation, but those things are the means to getting to court.

Once I am there.....


Anonymous said...

It has always been known that the outcome we now see would occur.

Yes many will continue to sleep as you state, but when they wake they will be too late to intervene. Wake they will do.

The very idea of man governing man is sublime to state the least...

As to European Union, it will never truly amalgamate, again this was always known. That stated does not mean that it will not effect us in the British isles, for it most certainly will.

Perhaps next time we will learn to be a wiser, attentive and more in-tuitive people...

Captain Ranty said...


I know that has to happen: we all have to be awake but I have grown far too cynical. I speak (on here) with more hope than belief.

All we can do, I think, is keep banging the drum.

When will that Hundredth Monkey rule kick in?


Sean said...


I'm the Politics editor at Before It's News. Our site is a People Powered news platform with over 4,000,000 visits a month and growing fast.

We would be honored if we could republish the Captain Ranty - Lawful Rebel blog rss feed in our European Union category. Our readers need to read what experts like you have to say.

Syndicating to Before It's News is a terrific way to spread the word and grow your audience. If you are interested in syndicating with us, please contact me at

sean [at] beforeitsnews [dot] com

Thank you

ReefKnot said...


Good piece, makes me think.

BTW, I note that my passport says I am a British Citizen. I always thought citizens belonged to republics and subjects belonged to monarchies. Does this mean we are now a republic ?

Woman on a Raft said...

For info: the National Archives have the Treason Act 1351 available in various formats. Scroll down to choose the one you want, and click on the other tabs for surrounding information.

The National Archives legislation database takes a little bit of getting used to. You have to check very carefully that you have got the current version in front of you and that you've checked for updates and other legislation which might affect it, but it is aiming to be comprehensive and they are building on it all the time.

As for what I think: if you ask a queen if she is sovereign, and she passes that question on...then the answer is not 'yes'. If the answer is not "Yes" then it doesn't really matter what else they do or do not say.

"Yes" is the only correct answer to that question.

Captain Ranty said...


You have my permission to help yourself to anything here. Publish away!

But, I am no expert. I just have a desire to blog the truth, or at the very least, a different version of the "accepted" truth. Much of what I write here comes from many gifted others. If I have credited them, all I ask is that you do the same on Before It's News.

I have visited your site several times and I very much like what I see.


Captain Ranty said...


Prior to 1983 all British passports said "subject". After that, we morphed into "citizens".

I do not recall being asked. Do you?

In 1992, John Major (then Prime Minister) announced in the HoC that Brenda was now a fully-fledged EU citizen. Despite searching for hundreds of hours, I cannot find a single case in history of a monarch being a monarch and a citizen at the same time. She is one or the other. I guess we now all know that she is a mere citizen, like us.

Which may be why we can never get a judge/sheriff to confirm that he/she is on his/her oath.

To say that they are acting under oath would be a monstrous lie.

Who in their right minds would swear (and uphold) an oath sworn to a simple EU citizen?

And that fact alone makes our courts and their officers, null & void.

We are NOT a republic. We are a farce.


Captain Ranty said...


Thanks for highlighting that factoid.

It leapt off the page for me and my spidey sense started tingling. I was wondering if anyone else would see it.

You did, and you are quite right.

It's like being asked "Are you English?" and you say, "Hang on, I'll just check".

If you need to check, you aren't. This is fundamental knowledge that requires no checking.

Thanks for the link!


DAD said...

This CoE minister asked the question if the queen was still sovereign. Listen to the answer on

What happens when a summons R v. Joe Bloggs is issued, if she is not sovereign?

Captain Ranty said...

Thanks DAD.

Blog edited to show the vid.

Good find!!

I will argue exactly that if/when I get into a courtroom.


bryboy said...

Yes WoaR has hit the nail on the head but the big question is how do we conduct this debate in public? The masses just don't want to know. We need an MP to stand up and ask a direct question to the government quoting the relevant facts. We should be demanding to know the constitutional position of the monarch in relation to the EU. Until someone demands an answer they will continue to run rings round us.

Captain Ranty said...


Which MP would do that?

They all swear an oath to Brenda.

Which of them will stand up and announce to all and sundry "I am a fake! I swore an oath to a monarch who is only a citizen!"

I think all MPs (apart from those expense fiddling Sinn Fein bastards) swear the same oath to Brenda.

I agree that it SHOULD happen, but who amongst them has the sand to do it?


Pete said...

Excellent article Capt. I have seen the video before and it makes for very interesting viewing.

I cannot uphold the oath that I swore whilst in the Army because as far as I am concerned it has been voided when the UK Monarch gave away the sovereignty of the UK.

coz said...

You know they're all lizzards, folks.

coz said...

...or if you want the long version for some holiday viewing, it's on youtube called 'Antichrist and a cup of tea'

I don't know how much longer Lizzie will be around, Chiller is starting to throw his weight around as though it's his 'time'.

bollixed said...

I have a very interesting letter from Henry Bellingham MP, Minister for Africa, the UN, Overseas Territories, and conflict issues clarifying exactly this question. If you want to contact me to publish the letter CR, please get in touch.

Ignoring whatever his actual job function (sounds like a NWO placeman to me) is for now he makes it clear that "the formal title of the Queen is Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". As a Scot I am sure my fellow Scots will be delighted that this inbred English fuckwit doesn't know that she is NOT and never was Liz II of Scotland, given the minor issue that she was the FIRST Elizabeth north of the border. Note also that he hasn't included all the knightly orders, Masonic outfits, and institutes that used to form part of her formal title, or the trifling matter of her current connection with any commonwealth countries. According to our 'enry she no longer appears to have any formal commonwealth titles any more.

Next he goes on to say,"Her Majesty's position as Constitutional Head of State of the United Kingdom has NOT (word is underlined in letter!) changed with entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty". Really? I refer your readers to this webpage in the royal website (note the address, which strikes me as strange):

I quote, "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."

So...... she's a national of UK PLC, she's a citizen of the EU, but she's also still a sovereign? Doesn't this contradict what your the parliament booklet states, as 'enry doesn't say she is honorary or theoretical? WTF is going on here? Really!! They are making it up as they go along. Our local MP didn't even know the answer to this simple but fundamentally important question. Its one huge almighty clusterf*ck of a constitutional mess and they are wriggling and bullshitting their way through it. I don't think we are pushing hard enough at this area.

bollixed said...

Joint Litigation anyone?? I'll put my name up for that.

AND....just to chuck another stick in the spokes of the oiled wheel of treasonous bullshit, I refer everyone to the inside front cover of their corporate Person's passport where it refers now to some other entity called Her Britannic Majesty. Who dat? This isn't a mistake. It is actually Her Britannic Majesty's Secretary of State who is doing the requesting now so she has been removed from that role and replaced by an out and out traitor. Note that as a British national she now should properly carry a passport so who is the higher authority there?

Oh, what a tangled web they weave when they set out to deceive...

This is a subject I really would like to help out with as a joint litigant. Its an open goal.

CR, do you have an email address I can use to pass you a copy of the original letter from 'enry Bellingham and our local MP? I have no problems with you posting it for others to see and use.

bollixed said...

I just posted two posts that expands on this subject and they appeared then immediately disappeared here. Very strange.

I'll check again tomorrow morning just in case there is some weird delay and post them again if they don't appear.

Do you have an email I can use to send you copies of some documents in my possession, CR?

Anonymous said...

I put up 3 posts here under my moniker 'bollixed' that show up then immediately disappear. Something very strange happening CR....

Captain Ranty said...


You were in the spam bucket for some reason.

Write to me here:

captainranty at btinternet dot com


James Higham said...

Have to discuss this with Mrs. Queen.

Captain Ranty said...


Let us know how that turns out...

John Pickworth said...

"Our present system of government is now called a Parliamentary Democracy when back at the Queen’s Coronation it was a Constitutional Monarchy.

When was the change made and under what Act of Parliament which was given the Royal Assent?"

A damn good question.

Its something I'd like to know very much. Although I suspect it might be connected to when Blair started faffing around with the Lords?

Stealthy said...

Blimey what a fiasco! Terrific post Rantus, with any luck it will raise an eyebrow or two :)

Captain Ranty said...


The Parliament Act 1911 interfered with the Royal Prerogative by weakening the concept of Royal Assent and the House of Lords Act 1999 interfered with the power of the HoL by disallowing some hereditary Peers from taking their seats.*

* It was this Act that caused 86 Peers to form the Barons Committee of 2001. They informed the monarch that they were usings rights granted under Magna Carta 1215 to form this committee.

So you are right: Tony Bliar had a lot to do with it and it resulted in me (and another 500,000 people) entering Lawful Rebellion.


Captain Ranty said...



It may do. Briefly.

Then again, Slebrity Big Brother starts soon so they will swing their attention back to that.


Anonymous said...

A very interesting conversation you were privy to. Especially this:

‘we all owe a duty of allegiance to the Sovereign, who provides our protection, and that the breaking of that allegiance is the essence of treason. You will find a comprehensive description of the criminal offence in Lord Halsbury’s Laws of England Vol11. Treason is at the head of all crime and was a capital offence involving the death penalty until 1999, then reduced to life imprisonment'.

According to Hansard the last person to be convicted of Treason suffered a Community Service Order. Compare the gravity of this penalty with the £450 a number of people were recently fined for the offence of dropping a cigarette end.

I also found this year's Queen's speech interesting. She makes mention of families, friends, communities and the Commonwealth but says nothing at all of our relationship with the European Union. Watch it for youselves.

Those interesting constitutional questions raised in your post are indeed to be asked in the right places next year.


mikebravo said...

How does lawful rebellion stand when we no longer have a Monarch or Sovereign?
You can hardly rebel against an abdicated monarch. Are the Barons the holders of the crown now?


Captain Ranty said...


I refuse to watch the old bat.

Who are you (we) going to ask? They all have a dog in the fight so we are unlikely to get any truthful/meaningful answers.


Captain Ranty said...


As far as I am concerned the Barons are in charge. I have sworn allegiance to them until the mess is cleaned up.


rapscallion said...

Just a quick one Captain Ranty.

The Army, RAF and Royal Marines swear an oath, but the Royal Navy doesn't.

Captain Ranty said...


Thanks, I did not know that.

Do you (or anyone else) know why they do not swear an oath?