I have received the following from Anne Palmer, which is quite clear and in my opinion deserves as wide a circulation within the UK as is presently possible:
§§§§§§
To.The Rt Hon David Cameron MP
10 Downing Street
London SW1A 2AA
United Kingdom
20. 2.2013.
Dear Prime Minister,
RE: The Succession to the Crown Bill.
This Bill has
already been put to every Realm in the Commonwealth for which Her Majesty is
Head of State, with the matter having been debated in the House of Commons
which for now lodges temporary with Members of Parliament. I understand it is
presently in the House of Lords.
I therefore wish
to suggest, that as it allegedly proposes changes to Parliament’s foundational
Declaration and Bill of Rights, that the People of this United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland must be consulted as to any changes to this great
Statute – for indeed it is their Bill of Rights 1689. The Bill of
Rights, as I am sure you are aware, cannot be changed otherwise. Yet this
proposed Bill, as I understand it, changes Nine (9) parts of our long standing
Common Law Constitution. There is absolutely no need for any changes to our
Constitution at this moment in time for there are two other people in line to
the Throne and the next in line has not even been born yet. The two codiciles at the end of the Bill of
Rights make very clear indeed that no alterations to the Bill may be permitted.
The Bill of
Rights 1689, the Act of Settlement, the Union with Scotland Act 1706, the
Coronation Oath Act 1688, the Princess Sophia’s Precedence Act 1711, the Royal Marriages Act
1772, the Union with Ireland Act 1800, the Accession Declaration Act 1910 and
the Regency Act 1937.
I quote from the Lords; “In many ways, this Bill is akin to an
international treaty and it is incumbent on us to give this legislation
detailed consideration of what I hope is a Bill with a clear purpose. This is
not just to assure ourselves that the law is sound, but also to consider that
these changes will be brought into effect in lands beyond our borders, lands
that are tied together by a common history and monarch through the
Commonwealth.”
As the proposed new legislation to change the alterations to this Bill have
been sent all around around the world without the people of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland being informed and
before it was even put to Members of the Commonwealth, I submit that the people
should indeed have their say. Whether they would agree to all the proposed
changes to all nine parts of their Constitution is another matter all together,
but it really is up to them -- for the People of this Country must be allowed
to express their view in this great matter of State.
From the Bill of Rights. II. And be it further declared and
enacted by the authority aforesaid, that from and after this present session of
Parliament no dispensation by _non obstante_ of or to any statute or any part
thereof shall be allowed, but that the same shall be held void and of no
effect, except a dispensation be allowed of in such statute, and except in
such cases as shall be specially provided for by one or more bill or bills to
be passed during this present session of Parliament.
III. Provided that no charter or grant or pardon granted before the three
and twentieth day of October in the year of our Lord one thousand six hundred
eighty-nine shall be any ways impeached or invalidated by this Act, but that
the same shall be and remain of the same force and effect in law and no other
than as if this Act had never been made. End of quotes
I beg
you, Mr Cameron, not to alter any part of our long standing Common Law
Constitution that so many gave their lives for in World War II. THEY died in order to keep their own Common
Law Constitution rather than be ruled by foreigners at that time. We could not control whoever became leaders
in other Countries then, and we cannot control who becomes leaders in other
Country’s now. Our own Constitution is protected of course by the Treason Acts
which are there constantly to protect our old and rather strange Common Law
Constitution, our Constitution that has remained ever thus because twice the
people have fought and died to keep it.
I know what that last war was like Mr Cameron because I was in it. The
old people on the Continent of Europe could perhaps tell you what it was like
living under a Dictator they couldn’t get rid of.
There is
absolutely no need to change any part of our Constitution at present. The Duchess may well have a boy anyway, and
our Queen is a perfect example that there is absolutely no problem to change
any part of our Constitution at all. I
beg you, please think again, for I do not want to see the people have to fight
for their freedom ever again. Once was
enough, and this is why our Constitution as it stands at present must remain
so.
Yours most sincerely, Anne Palmer. Address removed
As I had no reply, I wrote another
letter. Please note the dates of my
LETTERS-all before it became an ACT.
To
The Prime Minister the Rt Hon Mr Cameron
10 Downing Street,
London
23 March 2013.
Dear Prime Minister,
Regarding the Succession to
the Crown Bill
There are many concerns regarding the
proposal to put through the above Bill.
First and foremost of course is the proposal to alter our long standing
Common law Constitution that has lasted for over 600 years. The people of this Country fought two World
Wars to keep our way of life and in particular our Common Law Constitution.
The proposed changes are absolutely
contrary to Her Majesty’s Oaths she made at Her Coronation. Most people watched that Coronation all day
long-as did I- on what was then, a black and white Television. I understand that what is proposed now is
indeed contrary to the solemn Oaths Her Majesty made on that long day, she
cannot take part in what is proposed and placed Her Prerogative with Her loyal
and true Government Ministers. However,
as Her Majesty’s Ministers also make loyal Oaths before they may take up their seats in the
House of Commons, even though some of the people have freely voted for them,
they may not take their seats until their sworn Oath is read out loud, Therefore I suggest none of the proposed
changes in the above Bill can be passed or acted upon for the reason below.
Even as MP’s
step forward in the House of Commons to place their hand on the Bible and swear
the Oath, that Oath ends with the words , "ACCORDING TO LAW".
This is the Executive ECHOING the Queen's own Coronation Oath. There are
TWO OATHS operative here, to protect the nation and the people.
The Queen's Oath, and the Oath of her Executive to her. They are interlocking
oaths to respect the RULE OF LAW at all times.
I question whether, as each and everyone of
us here in the United Kingdom, especially those that were born here, from the
moment of birth it is as though they had made that Oath, for from the moment in
this Her Majesty’s Realm, it is as if they have already said that Oath for they
have the protection of the Crown from that very moment. Though some of us make other solemn Oaths as
Magistrates, Police, MP’s etc each of us make them to the British Crown, yet
none of us can accept or change what her Majesty so swore on that very special
day when she became Queen. We cannot accept any of the proposed changes. Prince
Charles also made certain commitments when he became Prince of Wales.
To even put the proposals in the Succession
to the Crown Bill is completely wrong, and it is putting our Monarch and the
next in line to the Crown in impossible positions. Our Monarch cannot agree to any of these changes
because of the very Oaths she made at Her Coronation. Although I am aware that, “No Parliament may
bind another” whilst that may be a matter of fact, that applies to day to day
matters, but the Oath is of course part of our long standing Common Law
Constitution and it is indeed long standing because of the wars fought to keep
it ever thus.
Parts of Our Constitution may not indeed be
altered or passed over. Too many died in
the protecting of them rather than allow foreigners to force their
Constitutions upon us. We cannot change our
Constitution like those on the Continent because they were able to create new
Constitutions after the last war.
Also made clear
is that the use of the Prerogative Power may not be subversive of the rights
and liberties of the subject. (See case of Nichols v Nicholes, “Prerogative is
created for the benefit of the people and cannot be exercised to their
prejudice”) The
Bill of Rights 1689 is a declaration of Common law. It is also an operative
statute and it contains the Oath of Allegiance, which is required by Magna
Carta to be taken by all Crown servants including members of the Armed Forces,
MP's and the Judiciary. They are required also to "take into consequence
anything to the detriment of the subjects liberties”. The Monarch is constitutionally bound to
respect the Common Laws, which are recognised in Magna Carta and declared in
the Bill of Rights and so bound by Her Majesty's Coronation Oath. The Royal
Prerogatives of the Crown and Parliament were set by Common Law and cannot be
lawfully infringed by them. Each British
Subject from the moment they are born here in the UK is bound by an Oath of
Allegiance to the Crown and this country, just as if that person has declared
so out loud.
Two codicils at the end of the Bill of Rights. II. And be it further declared and
enacted by the authority aforesaid, that from and after this present session of
Parliament no dispensation by _non obstante_ of or to any statute or any part
thereof shall be allowed, but that the same shall be held void and of no
effect, except a dispensation be allowed of in such statute, and except in
such cases as shall be specially provided for by one or more bill or bills to
be passed during this present session of Parliament.
III. Provided that no charter or grant or pardon
granted before the three and twentieth day of October in the year of our Lord
one thousand six hundred eighty-nine shall be any ways impeached or invalidated
by this Act, but that the same shall be and remain of the same force and effect
in law and no other than as if this Act had never been made.
We know-without doubt, a female can become
Queen, for we have had two Queen Elizabeth's and one Queen Victoria. But I suggest that perhaps the
real reason why the changes to our Constitution are so desired is to fit in
with the EU's Equality Act. However, according to R v Thistlewood
1820 , "To destroy the Constitution is treason". The
Treason Acts are for all time, to protect our Constitution. To try to
change nine parts of our long standing Common Law Constitution at the whim of
“today’s” foreigners, when others gave their lives in two world wars to protect
and to keep in tact is sheer treachery and a betrayal of all those that gave
THEIR lives for all of us.
I am aware that
the “Succession to the Crown Bill”, has already been put to every Member of the
Commonwealth for which Her Majesty is Head of State, but they do not have the
same long standing Common law Constitution we have, yet they have indeed come
to our aid in our hour of need in that terrible World War II. I doubt very much that some, if any,
continental European Country would do the same as those brave members of Her
Majesty’s Commonwealth.
Sadly, I have
noticed that most, if not all legislation this Government has put through since
it came into power started its journey from the European Union, from the EU’s
Localism Act to same Sex Marriage, yet I never thought for one minute this
Government would ever try to change our Constitution at the whim of an EU
dictact or for any other reason either.
The people of
this Country cannot accept such deliberate changes to our Constitution that has
lasted 600 years and have fought in two World Wars to keep. The Act of Supremacy
1559 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." 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.
Having placed the above, can we indeed even
contribute financially to a foreign power?
Most Countries in the EU are indeed in financial difficulties quite
simply because none have recognised the heavy cost to them in Governance and
especially the financial burden.
Financing yet another layer of Government here in the UK, through the
EU Regions that have now been set up is yet another reason why this Country is
in so much debt.
I
wait longingly for the day when those we send to Parliament proudly and freely
also uphold their own very long standing Common law Constitution also, ready to
fight to keep it as those ordinary people fought so, guided and encourages by
one magnificent Prime Minister, one Winston Churchill.
With
respect, Anne Palmer. Address
removed
To. The Rt Hon David Cameron MP
10 Downing Street
London SW1A 2AA
United Kingdom
15.4.2013
Dear Prime Minister,
RE: The Succession to the Crown Bill.
I beg you once more not to continue with
the “Succession to the Crown Bill”. There is absolutely no need of any
alteration especially and more importantly because of European Legislation
through the Equality Act, an Act brought about by foreigners.
Those Commissioners in the EU bear
absolutely no allegiance to our Monarch, nor to our Country as we here in the
United Kingdom of Great Britain do. Anyone born here in the UK, it is as if
they have so sworn their solemn Oath of Allegiance to the British Crown from
that moment.
Many people in two World Wars gave their
lives fighting in those wars for freedom for this Government to be able to
govern itself and according to its long standing Common Law
Constitution, rather than having foreign constitutional documents forced upon
the free people here in the United Kingdom. Many innocent people, children and
babies also died in the bombing of this Country for all that this Country and
Nation stood for. I was in that Hellish War too Mr Cameron, as was our present
Queen, and sadly it can all happen again if you continue to allow foreigners
dictate laws even our freely elected Prime Minister must put forward because of
the treacherous EU Treaties ratified by others that alters the pattern of even
how our long standing Monarchy is deliberately altered through the EU’s
Equality Act.
I find it
difficult to believe that you would go ahead with these nine (9) proposed
changes to this Country’s 600 hundreds year old Constitutional foundation
Documents, especially the foundational Declaration and Bill of Rights 1688/9
the latter having two codiciles at the end of the Bill of Rights which makes very
clear indeed that no alterations to the Bill may be permitted.
I repeat, there
is absolutely no need for any changes to our Constitution at this moment in
time for there are at least two other people in line to the Throne and the next
in line has not even been born yet, plus it might be a boy anyway. The only
“rush” seems to be because of the EU’s Equality Act.
Noted the Nine
Changes Here: The Bill of Rights 1689, the Act of Settlement, the Union with
Scotland Act 1706, the Coronation Oath Act 1688, the Princess Sophia’s
Precedence Act 1711,
the Royal Marriages Act 1772, the Union with Ireland Act 1800, the Accession
Declaration Act 1910 and the Regency Act 1937.
As the proposed changes required for the above Succession to the Crown Bill
have been sent all around the world to the Members of the Commonwealth without
the people of the United Kingdom
and Northern Ireland
being informed, I submit that the people of the United Kingdom of Great Britain
should also have their say. It is indeed necessary for the Bill of Rights
anyway and unlawful otherwise.
Whether the people would agree to all the proposed changes to all nine
parts of their Constitution is another matter altogether, but it really is up
to them -- for the People of this Country must be allowed to express their view
in this great matter of State.
From the Bill of Rights.
II. Repeated quotes removed for
ease
We
could not control whoever became leaders in other Countries then, and we
cannot control who becomes leaders in other Country’s now.
Yet here, if this goes ahead, we are allowing foreigners dictate what even
our Monarchy must abide by. Nine alterations to our long standing Common
Law Constitution at the behest of foreigners. We went to war in 1939 to prevent
having to forcefully obey other people’s orders and Constitutions. Continental Country’s can now easily alter
their Constitutions for those Country’s were over-run, we however cannot Mr
Cameron, for the stretch of water between us and the Continent prevented such
an invasion. We gave our all to keep our
Constitution as it is at present. Our
own Constitution is protected of course by the Treason Acts which are
there constantly to protect our old and rather strange Common Law Constitution,
a Constitution that has remained ever thus because twice the people have
fought and died to keep it. I
know what that last war was like Mr Cameron because I was in it. The old people
on the Continent of Europe could perhaps tell you what it was like living under
a Dictator they couldn’t get rid of at that time and sadly, it could
happen again.
I beg
you, please think again, for I do not want to see the people have to fight for
their freedom ever again. Once was
enough, and this is why our Constitution as it stands at present, must remain
so.
Yours most sincerely, Anne Palmer. (Mrs) Address removed
And here is the reply
I have had today 17.6.2013. From the Cabinet Office, 4th Floor (SE) 1 House Guards Rd, London
SW1H 2HQ Dated simply, June 2013.
Dear Mrs Palmer. Thank you for your recent correspondence to
the Prime Minister, David Cameron, on the Succession to the Crown Bill, in
particular you believe that the legislation is not required. I am responding as a member of the team working
on Constitutional Reform. I am sorry for
the delay in dealing with this matter, this is due to an administrative error.
You express concerns regarding the
Succession to the Crown Bill, as you believe that there is no need to make
alteration to the Constitution. You
sustain that changes are not necessary and that changes are being rushed due to
the Equality Act.
The Prime Minister announced at the
Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Perth on 28 October 2011 that, with
the agreement of the fifteen other Commonwealth realms of which her Majesty is
also Head of State, the government would change the rules of royal succession
to end the system of male preference primogeniture and the bar on those who
marry Roman Catholics from succeeding to the Throne and repeal and replace the
Royal Marriages Act 1772.
The government received final agreement
from all the remaining Commonwealth Realms in December and the Bill was
introduced into the House of Commons shortly after.
Firstly, I would like to point out that
changes to the laws of succession are not due to pressure from Europe or from the Equality Act but from a reasonable
need to progress and evolve. The Prime
Minister states on 28 October 2011: “The great strength of our constitutional
approach is its ability to evolve.
Attitudes have changed fundamentally over the centuries and some of the
our-dated rule – like some of the rules to succession – just don’t make sense
to us any more.
[…] “
(I do not know what that is supposed to mean.-however, I have put
it as it is there in the letter. Anne)
The Deputy Prime Minister also stated on 22
January 2013 that: “On female succession, the real question that we need to ask
is why it has taken us so long. This is
a nation that prises itself on pioneering equality between sexes: a nation of great Queens
such as Queen Victoria and Elizabeth II.
A woman can, and has, been Head of the UK Government, yet still on our
statute books, with Parliament’s official backing, we have succession laws
based on the supposed superiority of men.
That anachronism is out of step with our society, it sends the wrong
message to the rest of the world, and it is time for the rules to change.”
We believe that the government’s commitment
to end male primogeniture and the bar on the Monarch and those in the line of
succession from marrying a Roman Catholic will end two significant areas of
discrimination in the UK.
The Succession to the Crown Bill received
Royal Assent on 25th April and became an Act. It can be found at;
I hope this letter clarifies you concerns,
Yours sincerely (A squiggle signature) Constitutional Reform Team.
******************************
My comments and please note.
I had no reply to my three letters on this subject UNTIL THE BILL BECAME
AN ACT.
They have changed our Constitution in
all these parts. Because this has been
allowed to happen NOW, they can do so again and again, or, when the time comes
can get rid of every bit of our Constitution to prevent any charges of treason
or, just to become Regions of the European Union-forever. Germany lost the war but won the
alleged peace. Anne
§§§§§§§
Labels: Cameron, treason
