I feel it is time to address the knotty problem of Article 61 in article form. It has not been a subject that I have addressed widely and this has been for good reason as it is fraught with difficulty. My position is fluctuating all of the time, and I can't say, for sure that in a few months I might not feel differently. This short article expresses where I am with this topic right now.
My current position is that, yes, Article 61 is a valid and real remedy: it was indeed invoked and this makes it interesting, certainly. However my support for it has always been a little bit half-hearted. Does that mean I don’t think it’s useful? No - I do think it is useful but there are some caveats. Please read on as this is important.
It is known as the Security Clause - the article in the 1215 Magna Carta that makes it abundantly clear that when the government violates the Constitution, the people are permitted (and are obligated) to take action and transfer allegiance away from that corrupt governing system.
Article 61 can be invoked when needed, and this did indeed happen in 2001. The Barons (the Lords) petitioned the Queen on 7th Feb 2001. The thrust of the petition centred around the Treaty of Nice, the then Constitutionally-unlawful proposal of taking Britain further into the EU and further taking away our national sovereignty.
As an aside, there are interesting files in existence, (FCO 30/1040), which were kept classified at the time, that show that the Heath government knew in 1973, that going into the EEC would be treasonous since it would give away the sovereignty of the Queen (which is really the people’s sovereignty) to a foreign body or power.
In my personal view, this invocation, whilst valid, was distracting and a little disappointing, mainly because it centred almost entirely around the issue of the EU (and less about the unlawful state of affairs that was already in place). Nevertheless, the 2001 petition does contain one general paragraph (at the end) petitioning the Queen to uphold the constitution (which is expressed in Magna Carta 1215 along with the right of the people to trial by jury through which the people govern themselves and give or withhold consent to legislation.) In my view, the usefulness of the invocation hangs on that last point.
Forty days following the petition, if redress is not made by the monarch, the barons and people of the country may stand in lawful dissent and may proceed to ‘distress and distrain’ the monarch by, for example, seizing public buildings. Redress was not and has still not been made.
The constitution commands us to stand in lawful dissent against a treasonous regime. Natural law requires that we do so.
The facts of the petition and invocation of A61 were reported in The Telegraph. We believe the Queen, in responding through her private secretary, Sir Robin Janvrin, did not deny Magna Carta 1215 or A61 thereof, and presumably she would have known that to do so would be sedition. (Janvrin’s letter requesting expansion on the matter, to which the Barons responded, I have not yet seen and have been unable to locate.)
So, many stand in lawful dissent, sending notices to public servants to ask them to correct the situation, and noticing them of the treasonous position they are in if they do not. Note that in A61, King John promised that he and all his heirs, in perpetuity, would command their people to stand with the Barons. Note that the letter to the Duke of Norfolk from Justin Walker and I did not receive any response, and this should be considered in light of the outstanding invocation of A61.
As I have said, although the invocation really occurred, it itself was distracting for the fact that it was less about the general unconstitutionality of governance in Britain but almost entirely about the Treaty of Nice. Further to this, the treaty of Nice was not, at the time of the petition, in effect.
Additional concerns relate to what appears to be a lack of understanding of the Constitution on the part of the Lords themselves. There is reference to the Bill of Rights, which itself was treasonous and disempowers the Monarch. Still further, the Lords, in their covering letter, cite the importance of the treasonous version of the Coronation Oath text from the 1688 Oath Act, meaning they had no understanding that the inclusion of the ‘…statutes in Parliament agreed on’ was unconstitutional in itself.
Further questions that might arise from all of this would include the nature of EU legislation, which, has largely been ported and assimilated into our own UK legislation, and therefore to what extent would that legislation have to be repealed? Have we received any kind of redress on this issue - just because Brexit has occurred!? Keep in mind, that many people, and especially those serving within 'the system', will likely be confused by the fact that your action and protestations are referencing an invocation that primarily centred on the issue of the EU - given that we have now had Brexit. 'We've left the EU - so what are you fussing about!?', will be a likely response.
What are the effects of a new Monarch? Does Charles adopt the unlawful state of affairs already in place under his mother QE2? I would argue that this is the case - and that it is the Crown (the Head of State) that bears that responsibility regardless of the incumbent. Ultimately, the governing system is still in an unlawful condition, and I would argue that the invocation still stands. That being the case, does the new incumbent even have a right to inherit something that is now illegitimate? The unlawful situation would have to be rectified, surely, for a new King to be regarded as legitimate, perhaps regardless of whether A61 had even been invoked at all!
It would be easy for people reading this to think that my conclusion would be that A61, therefore, has no value as a current remedy; but that is not true. I repeat that A61’s power and relevance was not denied by the Queen’s Private Secretary, it was invoked correctly, that invocation was reported in the press, and we have still not had redress.
I feel that any action under A61 must be taken in the correct context. I also feel that when all things are considered, there is little difference between holding the government to account more generally for unconstitutional behaviour and holding them to account specifically under A61. I feel A61 retains more power when applied at the level of principle: as soon as one begins pointing to technicalities and detail, that power is in danger of being lost, I feel.
All A61 is providing us, is a hook on which to hang our righteous outrage and sovereign action. It provides us a convenient extra mechanism to which we can point in documentation when writing to public servants. But it also still requires action from sheer numbers, whether generally pointing out unconstitutionality or A61 specifics.
It is vital, I believe, for anyone taking action under A61, to do two things:
Please keep in mind, also, the following. The Constitution is not a contract - but merely a one-sided promise to bind the Head of State and the governing administration. It does not compel or place any conditions upon the people - it only binds government in order to keep it from harming the already-existing Natural Rights of the people. Therefore, A61 cannot compel the people to take action in any particular manner or process. All it does is express what the Universe already requires of people at all times: specifically to call out wrong-doing and immorality and stand in defence of the truth.
In the context of the governing of the Nation, that means withdrawing your support for a treasonous regime and transferring your allegiance to those that still hold that ‘power’ (the Barons/Lords) or, simply, to the genuine rule of law and truth. A61 does not state how you should do this or any specific process one should follow except that any action and shift of allegiance taken should be expressed clearly and openly. It is for that reason, that highlighting the unconstitutional nature of the current governing system is, in itself, taking action under Article 61.
Following a shift of one’s allegiance will simply necessitate any reluctant following of unlawful regulation to be done ‘under duress’ - due to the threat of what will ultimately be violence from the system for that non-compliance.
It is worth re-emphasising here, that under Natural Law, we do not have a choice in this but are expected to act. Not doing so would, without doubt, deliver back to us huge negative consequences under Universal Natural Law.
WJK - 16/06/2023