Petitions to the monarchy prior to the invocation of Article 61, the safety and security Law.

William Keyte from www.commonlawconstitution.org and Justin Walker from the www.hardwickalliance.org have taken up the batton and are running full on into the battle for our Sovereignty. Here is thier recent petition to Charles III.


His Grace the Duke of Norfolk,

The Earl Marshal The House of Lords LONDON SW1A 0PW 24th February 2023

Dear Duke of Norfolk,

A Royal Retraction is now required for the Coronation Oath to be taken

We, the undersigned, make this urgent and open approach to you in your formal position as the Earl Marshal responsible for the planning and coordination of the forthcoming Coronation of King Charles III. We write not as Republicans but as loyal and well researched Constitutional Monarchists who fear very much the direction that our democracy is now being taken.

His Majesty is to be crowned in Westminster Abbey this May as our ‘first among equals’, confirmed with the onerous and overriding responsibility of protecting his fellow sovereigns from tyranny, oppression and injustice throughout the period of his reign.

To ratify this formally, the King will swear and then sign his Coronation Oath in Westminster Abbey before God and his fellow sovereigns. This will confirm that he will rule according to the ancient ‘laws and customs’ that make up the Law of the Land (Legem Terrae – the Customary Common Law) which, for England and Wales, is our ancient Common Law Constitution that was confirmed in 1215 by the Great Charter (Magna Carta).

As constitutional researchers of many years standing, we are fully conversant with the effective and inalienable protection that is rendered by our tried and tested Common Law Constitution. The Law of the Land takes absolute precedence over any statutory legislation that has been passed by Parliament, especially if that legislation is contrary to the fundamental principles and the effective protection that is offered by Common Law.

Unless the people of England and Wales wish to experience government overreach that could lay the foundations of outright tyranny, common sense dictates that Parliament must never be allowed to write itself into constitutional authority.

To understand the full ramifications of having a fully-fledged Common Law Constitution, we will take this opportunity to remind Your Grace of two of the essential responsibilities a Monarch has: 1. His Majesty must ensure that all trials involve a randomly selected Jury of the defendant’s peers that judges all aspects of the case, independently of legislation and the judiciary meaning that Annulment can result. It is in this way, that people define their own liberties and govern themselves at all times. 2. His Majesty must use his constitutional right to withhold Royal Assent where proposed legislation would be violating the liberties of the people or be infringing constitutional laws and customs.
These two fundamental duties of His Majesty the King should provide a double-lock safeguard against any future encroachment of tyranny.

However, it is now becoming clearer by the day that both of these safeguards have been completely overlooked by previous Monarchs, including, it has to be said, the late Queen Elizabeth II. During the whole of Her Majesty’s long reign, in complete contradiction to Article 39 of Magna Carta (which has not and can never be repealed by Parliament), unlawful trials were taking place without Juries. Where trials did take place with Juries, the Jurors were not permitted complete independence as is required by our Common Law Constitution. Never once did Her Majesty refuse to give Royal Assent despite very clear unconstitutional moves being made by Parliament to undermine the very sovereignty and fabric of the British nation.

As His Majesty’s reign begins, it would appear that there are no plans to address this unconstitutional state of affairs and this is despite the invocation of Article 61 of the 1215 Great Charter by concerned peers back in 2001.

To this day there has never been any form of redress for that quite lawful invocation to challenge clear government overreach. Redress would include, but not be limited to, the expunging of all statutes that are out of alignment with our Common Law Constitution.

Indeed, to the contrary, King Charles has warmly endorsed, perhaps unwittingly, a global initiative by an organisation that is both unelected and entirely unbound by any oath of service to the people of this country. For, on June 3 rd 2020, the King, as the then Prince of Wales, helped to launch publicly the World Economic Forum’s ‘Great Reset’. This is the brainchild of Klaus Schwab who set up this privately run global think-tank that recruits the world’s wealthiest entrepreneurs and technocrats whilst grooming and placing his ‘young global leaders’ to influence the world’s political channels. Meeting annually in Davos and elsewhere, these unelected and unaccountable ‘visionaries of the future’ purport to direct the lives of all the peoples of the world. Working alongside the privately controlled and usury-practising central banking system led by the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), the World Economic Forum (WEF) is now overseeing extreme social engineering to hollow out sovereign nations from within in order to bring them to the point of complete moral collapse and meek compliance, especially when it comes to sowing the seeds of deliberate confusion and doubt in young minds.

This all has the potential to take humanity towards a very dark place indeed, involving complete digital enslavement and the physical lockdown of entire communities and countries. At the same time, ‘bad science’, to quote the late and sorely-missed Professor David Bellamy, is being hyped up by multi-billionaire-funded universities to justify this ‘Great Reset’. They are using bogus ‘climate change’ modelling to take us towards a Net Zero carbon-free economy where we will experience complete state control over our everyday lives involving among other things, their planned ’15 minute cities’. Any proper scientific debate has been deliberately shut down by the mainstream media and people are not being told that CO 2, which accounts for only 0.04% of the Earth’s atmosphere, is in fact the ‘Gas of Life’. Real science actually says that we need more CO 2 not less!

Our freedoms will be further put in jeopardy by the myriad of digital traps that are currently being laid: for example, the ‘internet of things’, the ‘internet of bodies’ and ‘transhumanism’ – that is the physical linking of the human body to the digital world. It is proposed that we will have Digital IDs and Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) which will be combined with invasive and detailed Social Credit Schemes that use advanced Artificial Intelligence (AI). Whether in our home, on the streets or in our workplace we will all be monitored on a daily basis by the state using SMART 5G/6G technologies and advanced facial recognition software. Our capacity to make independent decisions for ourselves, including the right to travel, will be diminished considerably, if not altogether. Our ability to spend our state-provided digital money or tokens in an otherwise cashless society will be determined by our ‘carbon footprint’ and our loyalty, acceptance and ‘good behaviour’ towards the ‘state’ and what it now stands for. Everything that George Orwell warned us about is now starting to happen.
When it comes to the actual roll-out of this encroaching nightmare, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is already leading the way as it sets out to digitally enslave all of China with a comprehensive and all-pervading CBDC and Social Credit System ⎯ a blueprint that Klaus Schwab and his WEF team have actually been working on with the CCP for some years.

And please remember, Your Grace, that this is all being done on the premise of ‘saving the planet’ from a gas that actually gives life to all living creatures on Earth. But apparently, it is not all bad news. The all-seeing and all-knowing state will allow us to invest in the digital Metaverse so that we can all enjoy and escape to a very different ‘reality’ from the one that the ‘globalists’ are now working to create for us.

His Majesty, to his enormous credit, has a high profile in calling for the tackling of pollution, increasing bio- diversity, supporting rural economies and protecting our vulnerable eco-systems. The ideas of the WEF are deliberately presented so as to appear to provide solutions to many of his Majesty’s legitimate environmental concerns. However, the level of control proposed presents an enormous risk to our liberties, the main protection against which is to shore up our national sovereignty under our ancient Common Law Constitution.

The country looks to His Majesty for this protection. What is now emerging as a result of the British Establishment’s support for and endorsement of these external policies is a technocracy about which the British people have neither been consulted nor for which they have voted. This is unlawful under our Constitution. If this state of affairs is permitted to continue there is a risk that our ancient Common Law Constitution and our great nation will be completely destroyed.

In order that the people can feel sure that they have His Majesty’s protection, common sense decrees that there now must be a comprehensive and public Royal Retraction by His Majesty to end, formally, his commitment to the WEF and its planned Great Reset; this to include the rescinding of the 2006 honour endowed on Klaus Schwab by the late Queen. It would seem, Your Grace, that only then would His Majesty be in a position to recite and sign his Coronation Oath to uphold our ancient laws and customs.

Lastly, as with our ancient Common Law Constitution that was drawn up by our forebears and later confirmed by the Great Charter of 1215, this Royal Retraction must contain a solemn commitment that the King and all future monarchs will continue to uphold good governance according to the same constitutional principles. This must be a statement in the form of a Royal Constitutional Document signed personally by His Majesty and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, in front of the privy councillors and invited lay witnesses. Only then can His Majesty take the Coronation Oath before God with a truly clear conscience.

Your Grace, this is an extremely serious situation that we all find ourselves in and a massive constitutional crisis will emerge if His Majesty takes the Coronation Oath without having first signed and sealed a Royal Retraction to negate his erroneous support for what is being planned by the World Economic Forum.


Yours sincerely Justin Walker Hardwick Alliance for Real Ecology (HARE)
https://hardwickalliance.org/people-vs-globalists/
William Keyte – CommonLawConstitution.org
https://www.commonlawconstitution.org
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3aXekqZwVQ


2001 Petition to Queen Elizabeth regarding the treasonous EU Treaty of Nice.

“…the said Lords…and Commons, being the two Houses of Parliament, should continue to sit and…make effectual provision for the settlement of the …laws and liberties of this kingdom, so that the same for the future might not be in danger again of being subverted. …the particulars aforesaid shall be firmly and strictly holden and observed…and all officers and ministers whatsoever shall serve their Majesties and their successors according to the same, in all time to come.”

Letter Accompanying The Petition To The Queen Secretary

Sir Robin Janvrin, KCVO, CB

Principal Private Secretary to Her Majesty The Queen

Buckingham Palace

London

23 March 2001

You were kind enough to invite a letter of amplification to accompany our petition to Her Majesty. Thank you.

The Treaty of Nice raises issues of major constitutional importance. It directly threatens our rights and freedoms, and undermines oaths of loyalty to the Crown. Such fundamental matters cannot be considered merely the stuff of day-to-day politics. They directly concern the Crown, the constitution and every British subject, including generations yet unborn.

We find ourselves living in exceptional times, which call for exceptional measures. Hence our petition to Her Majesty, which exercises rights unused for over 300 years – clause 61 of Magna Carta, which were reinforced by article 5 of the Bill of Rights.

As you know, the wording of clause 61 says: …and, laying the transgression before us, petition to have that transgression redressed without delay…And we shall procure nothing from anyone, directly or indirectly, whereby any part of these concessions and liberties might be revoked or diminished; and if any such things have been procured, let it be void and null.

We have petitioned Her Majesty to withhold the Royal Assent from any Bill seeking to ratify the Treaty of Nice because there is clear evidence (which we shall address in a moment) that it is in direct conflict with the Constitution of the United Kingdom. It conflicts with Magna Carta, with the Declaration and Bill of Rights and, above all, with Her Majesty’s Coronation Oath and the Oaths of Office of Her Majesty’s ministers. Every one of these protections stand to this day, which is why they are now being invoked by our petition.

Ultimately, our supreme protection is Her Majesty’s obligations under the Coronation Oath. The Queen has solemnly promised to govern the peoples of the United Kingdom according to the Statutes in Parliament agreed on and according to their laws and customs. Her Majesty also swore to preserve all rights and privileges as by law do or shall appertain to any of them.

From the spiritual point of view, it is unimaginable that Her Majesty would seek, in effect, a divorce from her duty. From a secular point of view, the Coronation Oath is a signed contract.

Recent statements by ministers, and by the previous prime minister, confirm that they would not advise any measure which might tend to breach the Coronation Oath nor betray Her Majesty’s promise to her loyal subjects. Her Majesty accepts the advice of her ministers.

Conversely, it is their duty to advise in accordance with the Coronation Oath. They cannot lawfully advise a breach. Nor can they gain or remain in power without swearing allegiance to the Crown. Yet the Treaty of Nice represents precisely such a breach, and it has now been signed by the foreign secretary using the Royal Prerogative.

Blackstone’s Commentaries (volume 1, page 239) says of the Royal Prerogative: The splendor, rights, and powers of the Crown were attached to it for the benefit of the people. They form part of, and are, generally speaking, as ancient as the law itself. De prerogative Regis is merely declaratory of the common law…

The duties arising from the relation of sovereign and subject are reciprocal. Protection, that is, the security and governance of his dominions according to law, is the duty of the sovereign; and allegiance and subjection, with reference to the same criterion, the constitution and laws of the country, form, in return, the duty of the governed We have already observed that the prerogatives are vested in him for the benefit of his subjects, and that his Majesty is under, and not above, the laws.

For such words to have meaning, the act of signing the Treaty of Nice by the foreign secretary demonstrates that ministers have de facto renounced their oaths of allegiance.

Indeed, faced in due course with a Bill seeking ratification of the Treaty of Nice, the only options appear to be for Her Majesty to dissolve Parliament, or for the government to resign and fight an election on the issue. The ex-government would then be faced with seeking elective power to introduce new oaths of loyalty under a new constitution as part of their new manifesto. This would distil the issues as perhaps nothing else might, since it would allow the people of the United Kingdom to decide whether or not they wished the constitution to be breached in this way, their rights and freedoms to be curtailed, and the position, powers and responsibilities of their sovereign to be diminished.

Of course, for the many thousands of subjects who have supported our petition, no such option exists. As the Act of Supremacy and the Bill of Rights put it: 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, pre-eminence or privilege within this realm, but that henceforth the same shall be clearly abolished out of this realm, forever.

So it is clear that no-one – neither sovereign, nor parliament, nor government, nor people – may tamper with, dismantle, destroy or surrender our constitution. We are all tenants of it, and trustees. We inherited these rights, and we have a supreme responsibility to pass them in good order to future generations. They are not ours to discard or diminish.

Which is why oaths of allegiance place an essential limitation on parliament’s power, and the Queen’s Coronation Oath is crucial. The Coronation Oath is a moral obligation, a religious obligation, a sworn obligation, a contractual obligation, a statutory obligation, a common law obligation, a customary obligation, an obligation on all who swear allegiance, it is the duty of government, and it is sworn for the nation, the commonwealth and all dominions.

The Coronation Oath is the peak of a pyramid, and all subordinate oaths are bound by its limitations. The armed services swear allegiance to the sovereign, not to the government of the day. This helps clarify the principle that allegiance is necessary, and not optional – an essential part of the checks and balances of our constitution. Without these oaths, and their lawful enforcement, we have little to protect us from government by tyranny.

We return now to our reasons for stating that the Treaty of Nice is unconstitutional. Our petition highlights several such clauses. We draw particular attention to article 191, which seeks to restrict the political freedom of Her Majesty’s subjects.

The EU seeks to assume the right to lay down regulations governing political parties at European level [i.e.: in the EU] and withdraw or prevent the funding of political parties which do not contribute to forming a European awareness. This is a clear restriction of free speech and free political association. It also introduces two particularly abhorrent propositions – taxation without representation and the use of state sanctions to suppress public opinion.

Our political freedom is absolute. The Bill of Rights says so. It cannot be limited in any way. Her Majesty is rightfully inscribed on our coins of the realm as Fid. Def. and Lib. Def. – Libertatis Defensor, Defender of the Freedom of the People.

It has been suggested to us that a referendum or plebiscite might be an acceptable response to the question of ratification of the Treaty of Nice, but we do not hold that view. A referendum or plebiscite which purported to make lawful the infringement of our common law rights would itself be unlawful.

We come back to the oath of allegiance. Magna Carta says: We will appoint as justices, constables, sheriffs, or other officials, only men that know the law of the realm and are minded to keep it well…. How can such officers of the Crown organize such a referendum or plebiscite?

These procedures would also infringe articles 1, 2 and 4 of the Bill of Rights:

  1. That the pretended power of Suspending of Laws or the Execution of Laws by Regal Authority without Consent of

Parliament is illegal. (This must include the Coronation Oath Act.)

  • That the pretended Power of Dispensing with Laws or the Execution of Laws by Regal Authoritie as it hath been assumed and exercised of late is illegal.
  • […….]
  • That levying Money for or to the Use of the Crown by pretence of Prerogative without Grant of Parliament for longer time or in other manner than the same is or shall be granted is Illegal.

(This is further protection of our common law rights.) In the event that the Treaty of Nice is considered for Royal Assent we respectfully request that Her Majesty grant us an opportunity to examine the opinion of those who seek to alter our constitution by contrary advice. Accordingly, under those same terms of Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights quoted earlier, we the undersigned, and others– have formed a Barons Constitutional Committee to be available for consultation and to monitor the present situation as it develops until redress has been obtained.

We are and remain Her Majesty’s most loyal and obedient subjects.

Ashbourne Rutland Massereene & Ferrard Hamilton of Dalzell

The Reply

“I am commanded by The Queen to reply to your letter of 23rd March and the accompanying petition to Her Majesty about the Treaty of Nice.

The Queen continues to give this issue her closest attention. She is well aware of the strength of feeling which European Treaties, such as the Treaty of Nice, cause. As a constitutional sovereign, Her Majesty is advised by her Government who support this Treaty. As I am sure you know, the Treaty of Nice cannot enter force until it has been ratified by all Member States and in the United Kingdom this entails the necessary legislation being passed by Parliament.”


Q. Did the Queen even see the petition?

A. After 2001 she never wore the Royal crown again. The Regime narrative “The crown was too heavy for her head” beggars belief. What monarch would dare to sit on a throne without the crown on their head?

Some useful definitions:

Treason – To hand over the sovereignty, the decision-making ability of the nation to a foreign entity, without first being beaten in open battle or by the expressed consent of the people.

Sedition – To publicly write or speak with the intention of inciting the destruction of the constitution.

Misprision – Misprision (of treason) is to know of an act of treason being planned or committed within or without the realm, and not to report the crime to a justice of the peace. Then you are also guilty of the crime, or an accessory to it.