April 4, 2012

Message for the Dean of Westminster Abbey


Message for The Right Reverend Dr. John Ball, Dean of Westminster Abbey

Sir,  your proposal to “honour” Edward Heath in Westminster Abbey is grotesque.   

There follows extracts from my book Vigilance – A Defence of British Liberty, which clarifies the illegal nature of Heath’s deception of the British people.  He also lied to them by claiming no loss of sovereignty in the pamphlet sent to all householders in the UK prior to the referendum in 1975.  In earlier times he would have been tried for treason and almost certainly executed.

Dr Ball, you may find some of the references below instructive.  They highlight the legal and constitutional conflict between the EU and the UK, and hopefully remind you of the Church of England’s specific role and constitutional responsibilities to uphold the rule of law.


Sovereignty must – by definition – be absolute and unqualified.  It is like the concept “unique” – it cannot be limited.  Either a country is sovereign or it is not.  Either a monarch is sovereign or not.  The title, rank and style “King” is recognition of the physical embodiment of the nation’s sovereignty.  It bears no compromise.  

In the context of today’s issues, we can either have The Queen as the constitutional head of a sovereign country, or we can have a president of the European Union.  But, by definition – and despite John Major’s claim after Maastricht that The Queen was henceforth a citizen of Europe – we cannot have both.  

The 37th of the 39 Articles of Religion passed during the reign of Elizabeth I, which still have legal force, and which can be seen in any book of common prayer, says:

“The Queen’s Majesty … is not, and ought not to be, subject to any foreign jurisdiction”. 

Clause four of The Act of Succession confirmed the power of the sovereign, the role of parliament, the common law rights and liberties of the people, and the relationship between them.  It said:

“IV. And whereas the Laws of England and the Birthright of the People thereof and all the Kings and Queens who shall ascend the Throne of this Realm ought to administer the Government of the same according to the said Laws and all their Officers and Ministers ought to serve them respectively according to the same The said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons do therefore humbly pray That all the Laws and Statutes of this Realm for securing the established Religion and Rights and Liberties of the People thereof and all other Laws and Statutes of the same now in Force may be ratified and confirmed. And the same are by His Majesty by and with the Advice and Consent of the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons and by Authority of the same ratified and confirmed accordingly.”

The Act of Supremacy 1559 went even further.  It included the words:

“…all usurped and foreign power and authority…may forever be clearly extinguished, and never used or obeyed in this realm.   …no foreign prince, person, prelate, state, or potentate…shall at any time after the last day of this session of Parliament, use, enjoy or exercise any manner of power, jurisdiction, superiority, authority, preeminence or privilege…within this realm, but that henceforth the same shall be clearly abolished out of this realm, for ever.” 
The Act of Supremacy is now largely repealed, but its central intentions live on through the use of almost identical words 129 years later, when The Declaration of Rights of 1688 was written.  This, too, is a settlement treaty, and not an Act of Parliament.  It too, therefore, cannot be repealed by parliament.  

The Convention Parliament which drew up the Declaration was called when the Bishop of Salisbury invoked clause 61 of Magna Carta, and demanded the attendance of 25 barons to address his grievances – evidence that clause 61 has teeth, and that there is a precedent for such action today.

The Declaration was engrossed in parliament and enrolled among the rolls of chancery.  It has never been listed, however, within the chronological tables of Acts of Parliament – a fact which might be significant.

The Bill of Rights, December 1689, incorporated all the essential clauses of the Declaration of the previous February, and may be argued to form an entrenchment of the Declaration, severely limiting parliament’s ability to make changes.  Indeed, it could be held to be doubly entrenched.  

Clause 13 lays specific responsibilities upon members of parliament to protect the best interests of the people who elected them:

“And they do claim, demand and insist upon all and singular the premises as their undoubted rights and liberties, and that no declarations, judgments, doings or proceedings to the prejudice of the people in any of the said premises ought in any wise to be drawn hereafter into consequence or example.”

The Bill of Rights includes an unequivocal and entrenching statement from the Declaration of the previous year.  Its intention was:

“…for the ratifying, confirming and establishing the said declaration and the articles, clauses, matters and things therein contained by the force of a law made in due form by authority of Parliament, do pray that it may be declared and enacted that all and singular the rights and liberties asserted and claimed in the said declaration are the true, ancient and indubitable rights and liberties of the people of this Kingdom, and so shall be esteemed, allowed, adjudged, deemed and taken to be; and that all and every the particulars aforesaid shall be firmly and strictly holden and observed as they are expressed in the said declaration, and all officers and ministers whatsoever shall serve their Majesties and their successors according to the same in all times to come.”

The Bill of Rights included the Oath of Allegiance to the crown which was required by Magna Carta to be taken by all crown servants including members of the judiciary.  Specifically…they were required “not to take into consequence or example anything to the detriment of the subjects’ liberties”. Similar words are still used today as crown servants swear or affirm that they “will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, her heirs and successors, according to law” and that they “will well and truly serve our Sovereign Lady Queen Elizabeth the Second…and will do right to all manner of people, after the laws and usages of this realm without fear or favour, affection or ill will”.

Members of the armed forces swear equally unequivocal oaths of attestation which commit them to “protect her from all enemies and to uphold her in her person, dignity and crown”.  

None of these oaths mention parliament, which clearly indicates that parliament cannot interfere with the relationships or duties established by them.  Which brings us to one of the pivotal issues of our case – the direct, indisputable and irreconcilable conflict between the oaths sworn by privy counsellors who subsequently swear oaths on appointment as European Union commissioners.

Privy counsellors swear:

“I will to my uttermost bear faith and allegiance unto the Queen’s Majesty; and will assist and defend all jurisdictions, pre-eminences, and authorities granted to Her Majesty and annexed to the crown by Acts of Parliament or otherwise, against all foreign princes, persons, prelates, states and potentates.  And generally in all things I will do as a faithful and true servant ought to do to Her Majesty.  So help me God.”

EU commissioners swear:

“To perform my duties in complete independence, in the general interests of the communities; in carrying out my duties, neither to seek nor to take instruction from any government or body; to refrain from any action incompatible with my duties.”

It is impossible to comprehend how privy counsellors who subsequently become European Union commissioners live with the contradictions inherent in these conflicting promises.  By definition, one oath or the other must be broken.  But the legal consequences of such breaches has – to the best of our knowledge – never been put to the test in a court of law or anywhere else, despite Lord Denning’s confirmation that anyone swearing an oath of loyalty to the EU should immediately resign from any public office which was held on an oath of allegiance to the crown.  

“A man cannot serve two sovereigns.” – Lord Denning


 I trust you will seriously reconsider your proposal and – in the interests of church and state – abandon it.  Anything less will further damage the standing of the established church in modern Britain and further alienate millions of Brits who abhor the EU and the wholly avoidable damage it has inflicted on the UK over the last 40-odd years.

If needed, I can sup ply abundant evidence from first hand knowledge to prove that statement, having spent five years in the European Parliament in Brussels trying to protect and defend the interests of the six million constituents of south-east England.

Ashley Mote


No comments: