Magna Carta Society Statement


Sovereign Authority

We have already argued that the ultimate powers of sovereignty remain in the sole possession of the monarch. Indeed, it is the unique covenant between sovereign and people that stands as the bulwark supporting our constitution and rights. The sovereign is the court of last resort, the only person who can stand finally between the people and renegade politicians. Indeed, we would go further. It is the sovereign’s sworn duty, as laid down in Magna Carta (see above).

The Coronation Oath is a contract for life between the sovereign and the nation.

The present Queen swore:

“…to govern the peoples of the United Kingdom…according to their laws and customs.” She also swore to preserve for the people “all rights and privileges as by law do or shall appertain to any of them.”

The Coronation Oath is not a contract between the sovereign and parliament. It is a contract between the sovereign and each individual subject. It cannot be broken by a vote in parliament. It can be broken only by the sovereign or by the individual. Like all contracts, if one party to the contract believes the terms are at risk, the other party can be called to account. As we have indicated already, today just as for nearly a thousand years, if an individual believes his freedoms, rights and liberties are at risk, the sovereign can be called upon to protect those rights as promised in the contract. Likewise, the sovereign can call individuals to arms to protect the realm.

We know of two occasions in modern times when the covenant between sovereign and subjects first established in Magna Carta, and renewed in every Coronation Oath since, has been put to the test by one party to the contract or the other. Conveniently, the two examples come from opposite sides of the covenant.

1975 – Australia. The Governor General, acting on behalf of The Queen, dissolved the Australian parliament and called new elections, when the then government attempted to pass legislation which was held to infringe the rights of all Australians.

1982 – Falklands. Sovereign’s call to arms to prepare and despatch a task force to rescue the Falkland Islanders whose rights and sovereignty were threatened by war.

Actions of this kind enhance the status and strength of the monarchy, and re-affirm to the nation’s subjects that their rights and freedoms are being preserved. They also demonstrate in a modern context that Magna Carta and the Declaration of Rights are alive and well.

The sovereign is the ultimate protector of the nation and guarantor of the rights of each individual, and those responsibilities are the sovereign’s, and the sovereign’s alone.

At least one constitutional commentator (Allott) agrees with us:

“For parliament to develop or improve on a fundamental right is one thing. But to enact legislation which expressly removes an already existing fundamental right, and to have that enactment blindly upheld by a court, is quite another.”

“If there is one thread which runs through the whole turbulent history of British constitutional development, it is the belief that we (parliament and the courts) are the servants of fundamental constitutional rules which were there before us and will be there after we are gone.”

The Ultimate Test

Despite all those rights, freedoms and protections, established over centuries, today our common laws, rights, freedoms, liberties and customs are being demolished with the speed and thoroughness of a team of statutory bulldozers.

Long ago, Magna Carta dealt with the problem of a sovereign acting above the law. Later, the Declaration of Rights confirmed the estates of the realm and their relationship to one another – a series of checks and balances. Today, that relationship has been seriously undermined. We now have a House of Commons acting above the law, plainly contemptuous of the (remaining) powers of The Queen and the House of Lords.

Such an overwhelming concentration of power in the hands of the executive, especially one with a huge parliamentary majority, means that we are currently faced with an extreme example of what Lord Hailsham famously called “an elective dictatorship”.

Writing of Magna Carta in his History of The English-Speaking Peoples, Winston Churchill said:

“…and when in subsequent ages the state, swollen with its own authority, has attempted to ride roughshod over the rights and liberties of the subject it is to this doctrine that appeal has again and again been made, and never, as yet, without success.”

The Magna Carta Society, and tens of thousands like us, believe the time has come – indeed, it is overdue – to put the great principles and rights enshrined in Magna Carta and the Declaration of Rights to the test once again. Eventually, the issue of the EU’s right to rule over the UK must be tested in the highest court in the land and – given the speed and comprehensiveness of present EU legislation and its destructiveness – that test must be made as a matter of the highest priority.

Already faced with the most fundamental concerns for the structure and protection of this nation’s constitution it now appears that the battle over the EU has developed a second front – the dismantling of our parliamentary institutions and the most cavalier disregard for our constitution and rights.

Given the extracts above, there is good reason to believe that, under Magna Carta, 25 hereditary peers can convene themselves as a quorum, and sit as a House of Lords, despite the recent passage of a bill purporting to restrict its hereditary numbers. We have reason to believe that such a quorum can be assembled.

Furthermore, under the terms of Magna Carta, that House has an obligation to hear petitions brought by free men, and take them to The Queen, who – equally – has an obligation to hear them. That is the ultimate consequence of the unique contract first established with Magna Carta and renewed at each coronation.

To those in government and the judiciary who might try to argue that we no longer have the right of petition and appeal to The Queen, there are serious questions to answer:

When do they claim that right was taken away? By whom? And how? On whose authority? And by what right?

(We believe the last monarch to receive and act on a petition was Queen Victoria, and we can find no evidence of any attempt to prevent or hinder any such petition subsequently. Nor does there appear to be any legislation which attempts to defy the contract made between sovereign and subjects in Magna Carta and the Coronation Oath. We acknowledge that it has become custom in the last few years for petitions to be passed to ministers of the crown for action, but that is not to say that the monarch can no longer act in her own right. Indeed, in current circumstances, the ministers themselves are party to our complaint, and cannot therefore deal with the matters complained of.)

In any case, the sovereign cannot be absolved from her obligations, responsibilities and duties to her subjects, and certainly not on the mere advice of ministers. Otherwise the Coronation Oath would be meaningless. Which is why we are preparing a petition to be submitted to the hereditary House of Lords for presentation to The Queen, based on the following terms:

“We the undersigned seek to draw attention to and seek redress from the imposition of foreign laws, directives, regulations and judicial decisions by and from the European Union and its institutions, to the detriment and prejudice of your sovereignty and to our rights and freedoms as defined in Magna Carta, the Declaration of Rights, and by the customs of your people, and which you, our sovereign, swore to uphold and preserve inviolate in your Coronation Oath of 1953.”

If Magna Carta stands, we have a right to enter such a petition. If it does not, this kingdom stands in dire peril, the executive have some momentous questions to answer, and all free men of this kingdom should hear the call. Whether Magna Carta stands or not, action is needed, and we intend to take it.

The Magna Carta Society


The objective of this document has been to make a case for the constitutional repudiation of the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Union.

There are, of course, other means by which the UK’s membership of the EU may end – the government of the day might withdraw; the EU might throw us out (we should be so lucky); parliament might vote for repeal of the 1972 Act; private prosecutions of government ministers for treason might be successful. Any one of these events would have much the same practical effect as we seek.

Whichever event prevails, we argue that there are other actions, legal and otherwise, which need the urgent attention of those in a position, and with the knowledge, to take them:

  1. Determine how best to test in the courts the claim that European law is “supreme” in the United Kingdom.
  2. Examine the direct conflict between the oaths sworn by privy counsellors and EU commissioners. At the very least, we advocate that those who have taken the commission’s euro should be publicly stripped of their status as privy counsellors.
  3. Examine the constitutionality of the two separate recent attempts made by parliament acting under instructions from the EU and the European Court of Human Rights to interfere with the oath of attestation made by all members of the armed forces. The first involves the setting up of an embryo European Army, and the second with the setting and interpretation of standards of behaviour likely to be detrimental to the efficiency of the forces. In both these actions parliament appears to have exceeded its authority, and had the effect of compromising the sovereignty of The Queen.
  4. Examine the issue of citizenship (Article 8 of the Maastricht Treaty – “Citizenship of the union is hereby established”). British citizenship (we prefer the term “subject of the crown”) is a birthright. Citizenship is not in the gift of a self-appointed foreign institution, which in any event is unaccountable to the British electorate and, we argue, has no standing here.The notion of dual citizenship, implied under this Treaty, is nonsensical. Across the world, applications for dual citizenship are entirely voluntary. Furthermore, the European Union is even now only an association of sovereign nation states. It is not in itself a state, much as it might like to pretend otherwise. It is impossible to be the citizen of a non-state. At the very least, therefore, that legal non-sequitur needs to be disputed in the courts, with the outcome providing individual subjects with a practical and effective means of rejecting so-called citizenship of the EU, and all its pathetic paraphernalia – passport covers, driving licenses and the like.
  5. Examine the constitutionality of the 1975 referendum and the referendum proposed on the euro, both of which concern changes which appear to have been forbidden under our constitution and, if possible, instigate proceedings to have them set aside.
  6. Investigate potential cases of treason against all the plenipotentiaries acting under the royal prerogative and who signed the Treaties of Rome, Maastricht and Amsterdam on behalf of the United Kingdom.
  7. Test the legality of all new EU legislation, directives and regulations, as attempts are made to introduce and enforce them. To date, insufficiently vigorous opposition has been applied. There are huge battles ahead, including: the euro and tax harmonization, weights and measures, a European defence force, Europol and Corpus Juris. As the EU attempts to enforce its policies and law on the UK, contrary to Magna Carta, the Declaration of Rights, and common law, each and every one must be disputed to the utmost of our resources and will-power.


  1. The restitution of the constitution will release an avalanche of cases of maladministration, involving whole industries (fishing, for example) and many thousands of individuals and businesses, and going back over many years.The desire for an immediate and gigantic bonfire of EU inanities will need to be balanced with an equally important desire to achieve rapid but orderly abolition of (now) illegal regulations. An immediate moratorium on enforcement seems the most practical and desirable first step.The vital issue of making good the damage suffered by the people will come a close second. This might perhaps be addressed in much the same way as restitution and reinstatement was handled after the second world war, with the state leading a programme of national re-building. What redress do the people whose livelihoods have been damaged or destroyed over the last 30 years have against government ministers and enforcement agencies past and present? And how can it be delivered quickly and fairly, without time-consuming and expensive civil proceedings? It is possible that justice itself will demand that the state foots the bill.We urge that a powerful independent body be set up as a matter of the highest priority and charged, primarily, with determining the best means of achieving rapid and equitable redress for all those affected by the enforcement of EU law, regulations, directives and judicial decisions in the UK since 1 January 1973.
  1. Investigate potential cases of treason against all prime ministers since 1972
  1. Investigate, with a view to prosecution, the past actions of ministers and officials who exceeded or may have exceeded the authority delegated to them by the people, and who attempted to defy the clear intentions of the constitution of the United Kingdom.

And Finally…

  1. The people are sovereign. The monarch is the embodiment of that sovereignty. So it was and still should be. But these tenets of the constitution have been seriously threatened by the erosion of the checks and balances between the sovereign, the houses of parliament and the people – an erosion which has been insidious, lengthy and allowed to thrive by the negligence of the people, who have failed sufficiently to exercise vigilance.

It was 473 years after Magna Carta that a further treaty became necessary between the sovereign and the people. Another 312 years have passed since the Declaration of Rights.

Events of recent years, and the momentous issues raised in this document, convince us that a new treaty between the monarch and the people is now essential. It should re-state the true relationship between sovereign, the two houses of parliament and the people, re-establish the checks and balances between them, and re-affirm the covenant between sovereign and subjects.

Nothing else will do.


This document was researched and written by the founding members of

The Magna Carta Society


25 January 2000

Founding members of The Magna Carta Society:

David Bourne Mike Burke

Idris Francis Adam Hartman

John Hurst Bob Lomas

Brian Mooney Ashley Mote

Bob Sims Bryan Smalley

I look forward to your reply.


David Robinson.


Email from Inspector Nicholson:

Good Morning David,

I so sorry for my elusiveness over the last few months, but the service has undergone a massive overhaul over the last few months which has led to a big impact on my time.

Anyway David, another apology in that having sought advice from the Police Federation, I am not able to get involved or encourage my staff to do so, as it is apolitical matter and we need to remain impartial.

Good luck though David, and I will watch with interest as to how things develop.

Inspector Mark Sarah Nicholson


My reply….

Dear Mark Nicholson,

By your comment it seems that the politicians of this country are above the law if they are not to be investigated for crimes against the state i.e. treason, then they are free to do whatever they like without penalty. I cannot accept that as a reasonable response from you and I must (under the constitutional laws of this country) remind you that we ALL have a duty under the law to stand by the constitution under the tenet of Article 61 since the time it was invoked (23rd March 2001).

We are all equal under the law and you sir have a duty under Oath to act according to the law without fear nor favour, The facts are the facts and cannot be denied. The treason being committed (along with many other crimes) is EVIDENTIAL and also the FACT that Article 61 of Magna Carta 1215 has been invoked.

As is the case within a regime of institutionalized treason your superiors (police federation) cannot be relied upon to give you lawful advice and, the Nuremberg trials at the end of world war two show that ‘just following orders’ is no defence in law. The Misprision of treason Act also makes those who have been informed of the treason facts, to be liable under the law if the crime is not then reported to a justice of the peace.

I find your response disappointing as I did when I found that you had not provided the constables under your direction with the information that I supplied (in disc and literature format) as you said you would do in a previous email.

I would like a recorded interview with you so that you can defend the position you are taking on this matter with clarity and, documented evidence that your position is lawful.



Please visit our Facebook page:

Leave a Comment

Nothing on this website is to be construed as legal advice.