Are the Monarchy and House of Lords legal/illegal?

Mark smith made this Freedom of Information request to Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

This request has been closed to new correspondence. Contact us if you think it should be reopened.

Supreme Court of the United Kingdom did not have the information requested.

Dear Supreme Court of the United Kingdom,

Please can you tell me whether the following is correct and applicable today :

March 17, 1649, the English Crown, including the Monarchy and the House of Lords, was legally and forever abolished and constitutionally prohibited in England through lawful Acts of Parliament. These laws declared it to be a treasonable act to re-establish monarchy in England, or proclaim anyone King or Queen.

1649, Charles Stuart, as the chief executive officer of England, was lawfully convicted of waging a treasonous war against his own people. Elizabeth Windsor , so-called Queen of England, has similarly been lawfully convicted of committing treason against her people and her coronation oath, and of personally participating in crimes against humanity. Accordingly, on February 25, 2013, Elizabeth Windsor was deposed from her office and ordered arrested by a lawful common law court of justice convened under the laws of England. (www.itccs.org)

Yours faithfully,

Mark Smith

FOI, Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

Dear Mr Smith,

Thank you for your Freedom of Information request. We will respond within 20 working days.

Kind regards,

Supreme Court of the United Kingdom
Parliament Square, London, SW1P 3BD
Tel: 020 7960 1900
www.supremecourt.uk
Follow us on Twitter @UKSupremeCourt

show quoted sections

FOI, Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Smith,

 

Thank you for your Freedom of Information request, which we received on 31
October 2017.

 

Please find our response attached.

 

Kind regards,

 

Rebecca Lowson

Information Officer

Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

Parliament Square, London, SW1P 3BD

Tel: 020 7960 1900

www.supremecourt.uk

Follow us on Twitter @UKSupremeCourt

 

The original of this e-mail was scanned and on leaving the UKSC/JCPC
network this was certified as virus free, but no liability is accepted for
any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e-mail. This e-mail and
any attachments are confidential and intended solely for the use of the
individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you are not the
intended recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by
return e-mail. Please note that any views or opinions presented in this
e-mail are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent
those of the organisation.

Dear FOI,

Thanks for your response but I found it less than satisfactory so may we have another go please?
Due to the ruling and execution of the reigning monarch in 1649 or the 2013 ITCCS court case verdict are the current monarch (Queen Elizabeth) and House of Lords committing treason?

Yours sincerely,

Mark smith

Dear FOI,
28th November was the date given that I would receive a response, the only response I had was one telling me you only have access to public records, the trial was public and you are the Supreme Court of Justice, if you don't have access to any historical documents on the trial/execution and PERMANENT abolition of the Monarchy through lawful Acts of Parliament then who am I supposed to ask?

IS THIS TRUE?
Act Abolishing the Office of King

WHEREAS Charles Stuart, late King of England, Ireland, and the territories and dominions thereunto belonging, hath by authority derived from Parliament been and is hereby declared to be justly condemned, adjudged to die, and put to death, for many treasons, murders, and other heinous offences committed by him, by which judgment he stood, and is hereby declared to be, attainted of high treason, whereby his issue and posterity, and all others pretending title under him, are become incapable of the said Crown, or of being King or Queen of the said kingdom or dominions, or either or any of them; be it therefore enacted and ordained, and it is enacted, ordained, and declared by this present Parliament, and by authority thereof, that all the people of England and Ireland, and the dominions and territories thereunto belonging, of what degree or condition soever, are discharged of all fealty, homage, and allegiance which is or shall be pretended to be due unto any of the issue and posterity of the said late King, or any claiming under him; and that Charles Stuart, eldest son, and James, called Duke of York, second son, and all other the issue and posterity of him the said late King, and all and every person and persons pretending title from, by, or under him, are and be disabled to hold or enjoy the said Crown of England and Ireland, and other the dominions thereunto belonging, or any of them; or to have the name, title, style, or dignity of King or Queen of England and Ireland, Prince of Wales, or any of them; or to have and enjoy the power and dominion of the said kingdom and dominions, or any of them, or the honours, manors, lands, tenements, possessions, and hereditaments belonging or appertaining to the said Crown of England and Ireland, and other the dominions aforesaid, or to any of them; or to the Principality of Wales, Duchy of Lancaster or Cornwall, or any or either of them, any law, statute, ordinance, usage, or custom to the contrary hereof in any wise notwithstanding.

II. And whereas it is and hath been found by experience, that the office of a King in this nation and Ireland, and to have the power thereof in any single person, is unnecessary, burdensome, and dangerous to the liberty, safety, and public interest of the people, and that for the most part, use hath been made of the regal power and prerogative to oppress and impoverish and enslave the subject; and that usually and naturally any one person in such power makes it his interest to encroach upon the just freedom and liberty of the people, and to promote the setting up of their own will and power above the laws, that so they might enslave these kingdoms to their own lust; be it therefore enacted and ordained by this present Parliament, and by authority of the same, that the office of a King in this nation shall not henceforth reside in or be exercised by any one single person; and that no one person whatsoever shall or may have, or hold the office, style, dignity, power, or authority of King of the said kingdoms and dominions, or any of them, or of the Prince of Wales, any law, statute, usage, or custom to the contrary thereof in any wise notwithstanding.

III. And it is hereby enacted, that if any person or persons shall endeavour to attempt by force of arms or otherwise, or be aiding, assisting, comforting, or abetting unto any person or persons that shall by any ways or means whatsoever endeavour or attempt the reviving or setting up again of any pretended right of the said Charles, eldest son to the said late King, James called Duke of York, or of any other the issue and posterity of the said late King, or of any person or persons claiming under him or them, to the said regal office, style, dignity, or authority, or to be Prince of Wales; or the promoting of any one person whatsoever to the name, style, dignity, power, prerogative, or authority of King of England and Ireland, and dominions aforesaid, or any of them; that then every such offence shall be deemed and adjudged high treason, and the offenders therein, their counsellors, procurers, aiders and abettors, being convicted of the said offence, or any of them, shall be deemed and adjudged traitors against the Parliament and people of England, and shall suffer, lose, and forfeit, and have such like and the same pains, forfeitures, judgments, and execution as is used in case of high treason.

IV. And whereas by the abolition of the kingly office provided for in this Act, a most happy way is made for this nation (if God see it good) to return to its just and ancient right, of being governed by its own Representatives or national meetings in council, from time to time chosen and entrusted for that purpose by the people, it is therefore resolved and declared by the Commons assembled in Parliament, that they will put a period to the sitting of this present Parliament, and dissolve the same so soon, as may possibly stand with the safety of the people that hath betrusted them, and with what is absolutely necessary for the preserving and upholding the Government now settled in the way of a Commonwealth; and that they will carefully provide for the certain choosing, meeting, and sitting of the next and future Representatives, with such other circumstances of freedom in choice and equality in distribution of members to be elected thereunto, as shall most conduce to the lasting freedom and good of this Commonwealth.

V. And it is hereby further enacted and declared, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, no person or persons of what condition and quality soever, within the commonwealth of England and Ireland, dominion of Wales, the islands of Guernsey and Jersey, and town of Berwick-upon-Tweed, shall be discharged from the obedience and subjection which he and they owe to the Government of this nation, as it is now declared, but all and every of them shall in all things render and perform the same, as of right is due unto the supreme authority hereby declared to reside in this and the successive Representatives of the people of this nation, and in them only. (1648/9, March 17. Scobell, ii. 7. Gardiner 384-387.)

Act Abolishing the House of Lords

THE Commons of England assembled in Parliament, finding by too long experience that the House of Lords is useless and dangerous to the people of England to be continued, have thought fit to ordain and enact, and be it ordained and enacted by this present Parliament, and by the authority of the same, that from henceforth the House of Lords in Parliament shall be and is hereby wholly abolished and taken away; and that the Lords shall not from henceforth meet or sit in the said House called the Lords’ House, or in any other house or place whatsoever, as a House of Lords; nor shall sit, vote, advise, adjudge, or determine of any matter or thing whatsoever, as a House of Lords in Parliament: nevertheless it is hereby declared, that neither such Lords as have demeaned themselves with honour, courage, and fidelity to the Commonwealth, nor their posterities who shall continue so, shall be excluded from the public councils of the nation, but shall be admitted thereunto, and have their free vote in Parliament, if they shall be thereunto elected, as other persons of interest elected and qualified thereunto ought to have.

II. And be it further ordained and enacted by the authority aforesaid, that no Peer of this land, not being elected, qualified and sitting in Parliament as aforesaid, shall claim, have, or make use of any privilege of Parliament, either in relation to his person, quality, or estate, any law, usage, or custom to the contrary notwithstanding. (1648/9, March 19. Scobell ii. 8. Gardiner 387, 388)

Act Declaring England to be a Commonwealth

BE it declared and enacted by this present Parliament, and by the authority of the same, that the people of England, and of all the dominions and territories thereunto belonging, are and shall be, and are hereby constituted, made, established, and confirmed, to be a Commonwealth and Free State, and shall from henceforth be governed as a Commonwealth and Free State by the supreme authority of this nation, the representatives of the people in Parliament, and by such as they shall appoint and constitute as officers and ministers under them for the good of the people, and that without any King or House of Lords. (1649, May 19. Scobell ii. 30. Gardiner 388)

Yours sincerely,

Mark smith

FOI, Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

Dear Mr Smith,

I am sorry that you were not satisfied with our response sent to you on 21 November, but that was our response to your request and was made within the 20 working day deadline set out in the Act. Any follow up requests you made in response will be dealt with under an additional 20 working day deadline.

I must reiterate that the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) is a request for recorded information, so your follow up question below, which asks for legal advice, is also not a valid FOIA request.

"Due to the ruling and execution of the reigning monarch in 1649 or the 2013 ITCCS court case verdict are the current monarch (Queen Elizabeth) and House of Lords committing treason?"

A valid FOIA request would be along the lines of "Please can I see documents the Court holds relating to..." or "I would like to request copies of any correspondence between the court and X." Your request below is asking for legal advice, not a specific document or any other form of recorded information. The Supreme Court can't give you legal advice, and the Court only considers legal issues once they have been through all the relevant lower courts and an application is made to the Supreme Court for an appeal. A person can't just bring a legal question straight to the Supreme Court, which is what you appear to expect here.

To clarify, we will only hold information about hearings that have taken place at the UK Supreme Court. If hearings took place at another Court, or prior to the establishment of the Supreme Court in 2009, we would not hold information on those hearings.

If you would like an independent review of the response to your last FOI then we will ensure that happens, and if you would like us to process your FOI with the exact wording you have used in your last email then we will do so.

Kind regards

Freedom of Information
Supreme Court of the United Kingdom
Tel: 020 7960 1886 [mobile number]

show quoted sections

Dear FOI,

Many thanks for your reply, I apologise for not really knowing what this FOI thing is all about or the supreme courts role, supreme sounds impressive though. Wasn't really asking legal advice as such cos its more to do with the ultimate outcome of any court case would the previous acts of parliament of 1649 have a leg to stand on or is there any such other document that everyone signed saying we made a mistake please can we have our monarchy back? I have read about the forced military coup re-instating the monarchy illegally by his son and heir but I don't really think that's acceptable behaviour

Yours sincerely,

Mark smith

Dear FOI,
Many thanks for your reply, on my last correspondence I included a question as to whether there are any documents relating to the re-establishment of the monarchy to England and/or Commonwealth? Similarly the House of Lords was abolished.
All I can determine from the history books is that the executed monarch's son illegally reinstated the monarchy so he could be a king and enjoy the lavish lifestyle and lofty position with no consideration whatsoever for the will of the people.
Have the English/Commonwealth general public, at any point since 1649, requested the reinstatement of the monarchy and House of Lords in the general interests of the people?
If so, please can you inform me of the exact legally binding documents so I can do some more investigation.

Yours sincerely,

Mark smith

FOI, Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Smith,

Thank you for your Freedom of Information request. Please find our response attached.

Kind regards,

Rebecca Lowson
Information Officer
Supreme Court of the United Kingdom
Parliament Square, London, SW1P 3BD
Tel: 020 7960 1900
www.supremecourt.uk
Follow us on Twitter @UKSupremeCourt

show quoted sections