Practical Lawful Dissent FMOTL antics, continued...

[dannyno]

Even more fundamentally, the Queen made no such promise in the Coronation Oath.

http://researchbriefings.files.parliame ... N00435.pdf

[notorial dissent]

One thing they completely fail to understand is the fact that HM the Q is monarch by divine right not by virtue of her coronation or her coronation oath.

The queen became the queen at the moment of her father's death and with the exception of 'her' government attempting to remove her, by threat of resignation or cutting off the bunce, or by her willing abdication she will remain the monarch until she draws her last breath.

She was the monarch for 16 months before her coronation and she would still be monarch even if she broke every single vow in her oath or just plain renounced it.

I'm a republican by nature but even I know the monarch is not legally bound by her oath. Politically and practically speaking she rules only on the sufferance of the people but that's a whole other issue and the opinions of a bunch of cranks is neither here nor there.

It all comes back down to the good old tried and NOT true, "they saw it on the innerwebs so it has to be true" no matter how utterly silly and ridiculous it is bit of silliness, and make no mistake it is very silly.

[slowsmile]

Where do these guys get their information, and do they just unthinkingly believe anything that suits them? I can't even see what can possibly be misinterpreted this way.

Julian Price Robert Pickthall Just out of interest where do you stand on the Queen's coronation oath where she swore on the bible not to introduce any new laws (otherwise known as statutes)..? And then subsequently allowed thousands to be introduced/passed.

This looks like a shorthand version of the crazy "defence" used by Anthony John Hill.

http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtop ... =52&t=9476

He seems to have virtually disappeared off the interwebs since then although, being the real "Messiah" he's always got one disciple to chronicle his victories.

https://hannahmichaels.wordpress.com/ta ... hony-hill/

[aesmith]

Even more fundamentally, the Queen made no such promise in the Coronation Oath.

My point exactly. Even without looking it up (although I did) it would clearly be idiot for anyone to promise not to introduce any new laws.

[noblepa]

In case anyone is interested, here is the oath sworn by Queen Elizabeth II, during her coronation in 1953:

https://www.royal.uk/coronation-oath-2-june-1953

As others have reported, it says nothing about not allowing any new laws.

[NYGman]

In case anyone is interested, here is the oath sworn by Queen Elizabeth II, during her coronation in 1953:

https://www.royal.uk/coronation-oath-2-june-1953

As others have reported, it says nothing about not allowing any new laws.

Right there in the first one:

Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the Peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Pakistan, and Ceylon, and of your Possessions and the other Territories to any of them belonging or pertaining, according to their respective laws and customs?

Isn't it obvious that their Laws and Customs are those that are in place at that moment.

Need more, try #3

Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law? Will you maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England? And will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges, as by law do or shall appertain to them or any of them?

See, it says maintain, not change with new laws, and update, but maintain.

So there you go, proof positive, the queen swears an oath not to create new laws, but to maintain what laws and customs were in place then.


Then again, only an idiot would interpret it that way....

[longdog]

In case anyone is interested, here is the oath sworn by Queen Elizabeth II, during her coronation in 1953:

https://www.royal.uk/coronation-oath-2-june-1953

As others have reported, it says nothing about not allowing any new laws.

Right there in the first one:

Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the Peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Pakistan, and Ceylon, and of your Possessions and the other Territories to any of them belonging or pertaining, according to their respective laws and customs?

Isn't it obvious that their Laws and Customs are those that are in place at that moment.

Need more, try #3

Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law? Will you maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England? And will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges, as by law do or shall appertain to them or any of them?

See, it says maintain, not change with new laws, and update, but maintain.

So there you go, proof positive, the queen swears an oath not to create new laws, but to maintain what laws and customs were in place then.


Then again, only an idiot would interpret it that way....

Your ability to explain misguided Footler pedantry either does you credit or suggests you're drunk or have received a recent head-wound. Bravo sir!

[notorial dissent]

snippity snip...…...

So there you go, proof positive, the queen swears an oath not to create new laws, but to maintain what laws and customs were in place then.


Then again, only an idiot would interpret it that way....

As you so rightly put it, pretty well covers it, and I will bet that the one making the claim couldn't actually quote any of the actual oath.

[The Seventh String]

One thing they completely fail to understand is the fact that HM the Q is monarch by divine right not by virtue of her coronation or her coronation oath.

Assuming Parliament doesn’t change the Act of Settlement or pass other legislation changing the rules of succession, that is.

In the UK Parliament is sovereign and can decide pretty much whatever it likes. Parliament can remove the monarch, decide who the eligible successor is or even declare a republic. All of which it has done, albeit not since the 1740s. But if for some reason Parliament didn’t want the most direct legitimate heir to be monarch, wished there to be a republic or decided to put the throne up as a prize in the National Lottery then that’s what would happen..

[The Seventh String]

From 1688 until it was changed in 1937 by removal of the bit I’ve put in bold, the first part of the English coronation oath was "Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the people of this Kingdom of England, and the dominions thereto belonging, according to the statutes in Parliament agreed on, and the laws and customs of the same?"

So presumably, by applying FMOTL logic, only monarchs who took the post-1937 version of the oath, must somehow, someway, resist and prevent the passing of any new statutes. Those monarchs being George VI and Elizabeth II, Edward VIII having avoided a lot of fuss and embarrassment by conveniently abdicating before there was time to hold his coronation.

How the monarch is supposed to block statutes when Parliament is the sovereign law-making body I don’t know and neither do the FMOTLs. The idea that all post-1937 statutes are invalid because a bit of the Coronation oath is a bit vague is plumbing new depths of silly.

In the real world, the 1937 change seems to have been prompted by the Dominions acquiring increased self-governing powers so a form of words that clearly indicated that the monarch wouldn’t be swearing to govern them in accordance with Westminster statutes was needed. Had they known in 1937 that 80 years later word-magic obsessed FMOTLs would exist no doubt they’d have come up with something a bit tighter.

And the FMOTLs would now be busily mis-interpreting those words instead.

[dannyno]

From 1688 until it was changed in 1937 by removal of the bit I’ve put in bold, the first part of the English coronation oath was "Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the people of this Kingdom of England, and the dominions thereto belonging, according to the statutes in Parliament agreed on, and the laws and customs of the same?"

So presumably, by applying FMOTL logic, only monarchs who took the post-1937 version of the oath, must somehow, someway, resist and prevent the passing of any new statutes. Those monarchs being George VI and Elizabeth II, Edward VIII having avoided a lot of fuss and embarrassment by conveniently abdicating before there was time to hold his coronation.

How the monarch is supposed to block statutes when Parliament is the sovereign law-making body I don’t know and neither do the FMOTLs. The idea that all post-1937 statutes are invalid because a bit of the Coronation oath is a bit vague is plumbing new depths of silly.

In the real world, the 1937 change seems to have been prompted by the Dominions acquiring increased self-governing powers so a form of words that clearly indicated that the monarch wouldn’t be swearing to govern them in accordance with Westminster statutes was needed. Had they known in 1937 that 80 years later word-magic obsessed FMOTLs would exist no doubt they’d have come up with something a bit tighter.

And the FMOTLs would now be busily mis-interpreting those words instead.

The wording of the 1937 oath is not exactly the same as the wording of the 1953 oath, mind you.

[Gregg]

Well, there's your problem. Any deviation from the exact oath that King John took is invalid.

[Pottapaug1938]

How the monarch is supposed to block statutes when Parliament is the sovereign law-making body I don’t know and neither do the FMOTLs. The idea that all post-1937 statutes are invalid because a bit of the Coronation oath is a bit vague is plumbing new depths of silly.

The monarch must give his/her assent to all laws -- even to one's own death warrant -- under the British Constitution. I don't recall what the consequences are, if she/he refuses to give the Royal Assent; but from Wikipedia:

Under modern constitutional conventions, the sovereign acts on the advice of his or her ministers. Since these ministers most often enjoy the support of parliament and obtain the passage of bills, it is improbable that they would advise the sovereign to withhold assent. Hence, in modern practice, royal assent is never withheld.

The sovereign is generally believed not to legally have the power to withhold assent from a bill against the advice of ministers.The last bill that was refused assent by the sovereign (on the advice of ministers) was the Scottish Militia Bill during Queen Anne's reign in 1708.

[longdog]

Ah... But see also...

The Lords Commissioners are Privy Counsellors appointed by the Monarch of the United Kingdom to exercise, on his or her behalf, certain functions relating to Parliament which would otherwise require the monarch's attendance at the Palace of Westminster. These include the opening and prorogation of Parliament, the confirmation of a newly elected Speaker of the House of Commons and the granting of Royal Assent. The Lords Commissioners are collectively known as the Royal Commission. The Royal Commission includes at least three—and usually five—Lords Commissioners. In current practice, the Lords Commissioners usually include the Lord Chancellor, the Archbishop of Canterbury (who is named but usually does not participate), the leaders of the three major parties in the House of Lords, the convenor of the House of Lords Crossbenchers and (since 2007) the Lord Speaker of the House of Lords.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lords_Commissioners

[SteveUK]

Yup, I can see this scheme working out well....Use the CLC judgement to force a DD clawback.

What I thought was one of the most powerful tools in our armoury was the Direct Debit Indemnity Clawback insurance that we all have if you use Direct Debits. I used this to reclaim TV License fees for a ten year period totaling around 1500 quid. This was very easy to do up until the last year or so when the banks have begun to move the goalposts and dishonour the guarantee. Banks will now question customers as to why they require to claim this money back, we have to obligation to tell them anything other than it is incorrect/wrong etc. They now have a list of reasons that allow the clawback, so if we show that it is unlawful and they don't honour it...........

Here's my point now, for those of you (including myself) who are forced to pay this so called council tax and pay it by direct debit. Get a copy of the Common Law Court order that annuls this tax and take it in to your bank. Instruct them to immediately claw back every payment of council tax from day one.

I know the bravest of you do not pay any council tax whatsoever but this is for the ones much like myself who pay it under duress of circumstances.

[notorial dissent]

I would think taking something like that to your bank would be a sure and certain way of getting your account CLOSED.

[Chaos]

I would think taking something like that to your bank would be a sure and certain way of getting your account CLOSED.

which is exactly why the person telling others to do it won't admittedly do it themself.

[The Seventh String]

The wording of the 1937 oath is not exactly the same as the wording of the 1953 oath, mind you.

The Coronation Oath has changed quite a number of times since 1688, and mostly without legislation being passed to make the change. Which bothers none except a few obsessives.

It’s a ceremonial form of words which makes up part of a very expensive show, the monarch usually having reigned for a period before being crowned. No monarch I’m aware of has thought “until I take the oath I can do whatever I like and command people to do whatever I like, so time for some fun....”

[The Seventh String]

I would think taking something like that to your bank would be a sure and certain way of getting your account CLOSED.

It might at that.

What else it would do, if the clawback were made, is attract the attention of the local authority’s treasurer’s dept. to your being a refusenik. To be followed by letters, magistrates court liability orders, bailiffs and maybe prison.

[The Seventh String]

I don't recall what the consequences are, if she/he refuses to give the Royal Assent

Assent is generally given by officials “on behalf of the sovereign” and has been for quite a while.

I think what’s supposed to happen if the monarch says “no” is the Privy Council reminds the monarch of their legal responsibilities and duties, and that monarchs usurping the will of Parliament has never ended well for said monarchs. The Parliamentary strategy, after 1685 at least, seems to have been to seriously threaten the royal bank account. I forget what it was about, but I think the last time that threat was issued on the grounds of royal reluctance to give assent was in Victoria’s reign.

Victoria also got a severe dressing down “without coffee” over the length of time she spent closeted away in mourning for Albert. A time so long that many people started wondering why the country needed a queen at all. Especially an increasingly unpopular one who apparently sat around at Windsor doing not much in exchange for her wealth and position.

Victoria got the message and the resulting massive PR exercise turned her into the Queen Empress of legend.