Whilst the deluded workers at the Lindsey Oil Refinery were surrendering to the government and their lackeys in the trades unions, this lady who is 91 years of age was fighting for our nation even though she is very ill.
I put her letter up her and state that if we had had a Queen Elisabeth and not a Queen Elizabeth, then this country would be in a far better state than it is now.
For the Attention of Queen Elizabeth the second ;
Dear Madam
Re: Unconstitutional reign
Giving careful consideration to the mode of address in this letter, although in courtesy I have addressed it in conventional manner, it is clear that having, in effect, abdicated by failure to perform your coronation oath you leave the people of this nation without effective titular head to whom we may address our petitions. I write to you only in your pre-eminence in Common Law.
I write on Edmund Burke’s remark that for evil to flourish it is sufficient for good men to do nothing.
At your coronation you swore on oath to rule this country according to our laws and customs. This contract with us was written clearly in Magna Carta and replicated by Edward I in 1274. After saying that he would give no such oath, the archbishops, bishops, barons and freemen said that, in this case, they would get another king.
In Magna Carta it was made clear that if the monarch went against this oath then chapter 61 would apply, the contract would be broken and the monarch would have to give up his position and possessions. You have, throughout your reign, disregarded our laws and customs in the legislation that has gone through Parliament.
I believe that you have done this on the basis of the Fabian inspired Parliament Act of 1911 which argued untruthfully that since royal assent had never been denied by a monarch since 1707 (when Queen Anne sent back a Bill) the use of the royal assent had fallen into abeyance. This claim was untrue and treasonable. Only the year before, Asquith had been forced to go to the country by Edward VII who sent back the same Bill to Parliament. And indeed monarchs had refused assent on at least six other occasions since 1707. On each occasion this refusal of assent was because the Bills concerned breached our constitution.
In other words, the 1911 claim, is incorrect and the monarch’s assent was never and can never be deemed unnecessary or automatic, even though George V chose to accept that the royal assent was now a formality and that the monarch could not, in reality refuse assent – as in the Northern Ireland Bill.
Despite all the long years of your reign this method of agreement, either forced on you, or under "automatic assent" nevertheless cannot be upheld as lawful.
Many people who have written to you on constitutional matters have received replies from your secretary (most recently, Sonia Bonici) saying that their letter had been forwarded to the government department misleadingly called the Department of Constitutional Affairs and Ministry of Justice. Your compliance with this has permitted the judiciary under these government departments to claim, as in the Chagos Archipelago appeal, that our fundamental liberties do not exist and that the peoples of these islands have no rights under our law.
I am old and now seriously ill. I cannot die without making clear to you that you have broken your oath to us your people.
The 1911 act purports to permit taxes to be levied on us merely by a majority in the House of Commons and without reference to the upper chamber. This again is against our constitution and specifically not permitted by our Petition of Right of 1627. The most serious instance of this is the use of our taxes to fund the banking system of this country: this is being explained to the electorate as a step which will in some way make us rich, whilst in fact it is not only unlawful, but a most serious abrogation of our rights and your duties under our constitution.
Your contract with the people of this country and the colonies and dominions cannot be destroyed by the chicanery of the Fabians in the 1911 Act, nor by subsequent legislation. If you have the courage to fulfil your contract, however belatedly, you could prorogue Parliament now and have a free election with or without party divisions so that this country can go forward in a proper and united way to remove us from the difficulties that have ensued since the 1911 Parliament Act.
Yours Faithfully,
Elisabeth Beckett
Copy to:
The Archbishop of Canterbury
6 comments:
Obviously this must be carried forward. And by someone with sufficient familiarity with the written British Constitution, as Mrs Beckett outlines.
Is this a role you would take on, Lee? It is vital to this country's survival - and strategic to her defence.
For example, according to our constitution, no Muslim should even be resident in this country. Their legal system and religion is totally hostile to our laws and customs.
Interesting that in 1910, the Coronation Oath was illegally altered to delete references to the Catholic mass, spiritualist Sir A. Conan Doyle being one of the conspirators. In the context, this has constitutional, not merely religious implications. The papal throne is the only other one of any significance in the world today apart from the British throne. WW1 saw to that.
Hi mate,
I have offered to do anything I can to help the good lady,
I will kep you posted,
all the best,
Lee
Thanks, Lee
Look forward to that.
I'm not a Constitutional authority by any stretch of the imagination but am very willing to contribute thoughts, comments on this etc.
Several years ago, 25 peers of the Realm lodged a petition with HM based on Clause 61 but it fizzled out. Fresh efforts have to be made somehow.
Few folk, even in the BNP, seem to appreciate the strategic importance of our constitutional documents.
More power to the dear lady.
The monarchy has taken the easy option because it knows it is a anachronism which can be swept away very easily. Remember the post Diana brouha? manufactured by Fleet Street and carefully damped down by Tony. That showed where the power lay. The Liblabcon will tolerate it as long as it doesnt over step the mark.
Prince Charles is a bit of a fruit loop and not too bright, likewise his sons. I like how certain aspects of the Royal Family which embarass the powers that be are hidden. For instance four of Prince Philips sisters married high ranking second world war German officers. Interestingly the late Queen Mother used a lot of her influence in the early part of the war to encourage the peace camp in Britain who were urgeing negotiation to end the bloodshed. This correspondence is closed until 2040!
Off topic but...
If you haven't already, take a look at rock zine Terrorizer, issue 180, page 25, where a character known as'Barney' from Napalm Death says in print that he has the BNP List stored on his computer,and that his brother has used it.
Sorry to bear the sad news of Elisabeths Death.
She died on the 7th of February.
The Queen no doubt will feel relieved lets hope this true patriots struggle goes on.
WWW.TPUC.ORG This group also follow English laws and were huge friends and supporters of Mrs Beckett.
This was just snook in under the radar.
Must be the help Brownski spoke of to struggling families.
Swines that they are.
Jack Straw in planning to increase court fees for debt proceedings by up to 233%
The plans were set out in a Ministry of Justice (MoJ) consultation document.
The cost of a debtor being summoned to discuss their finances would go up from £30 to £100 under the new pricing scheme.
And the charge, when courts give permission for creditors to send in the bailiffs, would increase 186% from £35 to £100.
The cost of committal proceedings, which allow authorities to take residents who owe council tax to court, would increase 178%, from £90 to £250.
The court fee charged when a debtor is ordered to attend goes up from £45 to £50.
The new fees will raise £38m per year for the Ministry of Justice, which faces a £46m shortfall in the courts budget next year after similar reforms to child protection fees (which rose from £150 to £4,825) led to a collapse in income.
This is Taxation without Representation.
A spokesman for the MoJ said: "We are committed to making sure those who face money problems are given the best support possible.
ZanuLabour Newspeak translation = When you get into trouble and you are well and truly in the shite, Jack Straw is going to kick you even harder to make sure you stay there.
This new fee structure is abhorrent and working against the interests of justice. This proposed fee structure can only be to the detriment of those who are already hard pressed by the economic recession, and in conjunction with the new rules for bailiffs is very much anti citizen in nature.
Post a Comment