The Divine Right

I know that the Divine Right is "Equality" "Fairness" "Impartiality" and "Justice". In Scotland the Monarch is "Equal" to the people and that is the historical premis for being given the position of Head of State.

However, that position has been usurped by the Woolf Reforms and the Access to Justice Act 1999. There may therefore be a consistutional issue as there is now a two tier system of "access to justice" under these reforms and consequent to this Act. Having gone through the system 3 times and on my first journey to the House of Lords, I can confirm that I did not get "justice" at any stage, nor have I received it via the other two cases at all, other than Lord Justice Lindsay granting a right to a procedural hearing of my second case.

This causes concern - we all know in law that the "Tribunal" system is an "inferior" court to the "Royal Courts" and its divisions - I operate in the Queen's Bench Division. Because this layer of courts in society is "Royal" there has to be some significance and the issue of "equality before the law" fundamental and/or profound. The upper echelons of this court appear to be "Knighted", ie Sir - there are currently no senior female positions. Why then is the Woolsack vacant!

I suspect the reason is because of the legal mafia I am exposed to on these three cases and probably also others which I perceive operates out of the Ministry of Justice and thereby the Cabinet. I cannot get Justice, nor equality and fairness and I have recently had to question the impartiality of the judge by asking for a declaration which was not forthcoming.

The issue therefore is "real" that the Monarch may not actually have the right to stay on the throne - but that I would not take it off her in any event: I would however opt for a solution that the Royal House potentially changes upon death of the Monarch by "open competition" amongst all parties who can show lineage from a Royal House of the United Kingdom. I consider that would be fair and there must also be a reason historically why the Royal House changes from Plantagent, Tudor, Stuart, etc. Others may have other ideas.

The current debate in Parliament relates to the Act of Settlement 1701 and its discriminatory effect within the UK current to this day. [Click here] Act of Settlement 1701 (information)

To my mind, it is jurisprudentially correct to review all legislation on the statute book and bring it up-to-date on the premis of "codification" - a statute is, after all, only a political slice of time - which does go out of date and the law can only be progressed legally in the UK via the other route "case precedent" and the "ratio decidendi" via current judicial thinking (which means there needs to be a challenge in the judicial system). No court based challenge, means political stagnation - we do not need to be that medieval in the 21st Century!

Therefore it is more pertinent to look wider at this issue, than strictly as a Catholic discrimination and legislative injustice. The issue of the "Divine Rights" must be considered here in line with the "separation of the powers" : politics and democracy and monarchy - the Woolsack. Moreover, the issue also should come under current political policy and include Europe - social inclusion and equality and diversity policy making specific to "Monarchy".

The Queen's lineage is German/Danish and "Windsor" is actually "Saxe-Coburg" - Europe should be given the opportunity to therefore consider "Monarchy/Republic" issues - would Germany like their Queen back or is she really a Queen in exile?, for instance, or young William as a potential heir! or even to just consider the issue? Would France like to resurrect their royal houses or Ireland for that matter - in the 21st Century the Monarchs should not be excluded or unequal or not diversified - multiculturalism. However, it comes with a proviso - divine rights! They occur regardless of whether the monarch is Catholic or Protestant, Jewish or Muslim and if I read Pope John Paul II correctly we are all claiming descent from Abraham! and more importantly the universalism of Catholic teaching : it is not possible to eradicate good no matter how bad a person is! So we should all be singing from the same hymn sheet, chapter and verse!

EQUALITY, FAIRNESS,IMPARTIALITY, JUSTICE. In that regard, we are all born naked and equal per se. Also, to my mind, we are also all born with an inherent instinct concerning "injustice" which raises a presumption that we are all born programmed "good". Sometimes injustice can be brushed off, overlooked, but sometimes damage is too deep or profound in which case our "Democratic" right is to use the courts for which we are all given a birth right of "Access to Justice" as a civilised society which is safe and just - therefore the right to "Justice" to expect restoration of equality where it has been usurped in someway via "reason" and by those appointed intellectually in society to ensure it: some of the application of the rule of law nowadays could realistically be downgraded to a call centre rather than a court due to advances in technology ie, the law is merely re-affirmed rather than challenged (which requires "reason" and intellect in order to progress society by application of the rule of law to "ought" rather than prescriptive "is" via statute.

The secondary issue after Divine Rights is why did the Woolf Reforms remove "Justice" and do the opposite of that which they were claiming. To my mind the issue was treachery and probably also treason - R v Hennessy [1758] 1 BURR. The Woolsack is vacant for a reason.

To open the pandora's box of the Act of Settlement 1701 you should have to look at scope and width of the surrounding legislation ie Treason and the Access to Justice Act 1999, which has done the damage, to also encompass current policy areas and the EU - a Regulation would definitely have an impact as would a Directive concerning Europe and bringing monarchies/republics and democracy upto the required level intellectually - Divine Rights!. Moreover, meddling with the UK Monarchy should necessitate a look at Europe and ensuring all Monarchies are providing "equality" via the application of the rule of law - safe and just society and civilisation. The Commonwealth may also wish to consider their independence or otherwise in the 21st century setting. It might also be prudent to look at why the courts are "Royal" or "Tribunals" are not, and the issue of democracy and the Woolsack being empty - there has been much nonsense under New Labour and change management regimes - there may have been a purpose - I suspect if did not quite succeed or in line of expectations.

(A little story: at Birbeck in my first year I was lectured in Constitional and Public Administration Law by Costas Douzinas - a professor who was of Greek origin. He was discussing that England does not have a Bill of Rights - to which I put up my hand and informed that there is a Bill of Rights - it is "implied" by the legal system of Scotland that the English cannot meddle in religion, education or law!!! The Professor's statement to this young upstart was "you know an insult when you receive it" - how true).

The issues are therefore "WIDE":

1. Codification of laws specific to the Royal Houses of Windsor and all others who have rights to compete for the Throne of the "Kingdoms" of the United Kingdom". The right to "compete" upon the death of a monarch would be progressive possibly radical - but history records Royal House change for a reason. It's not a pertinent historically to be an heir (without challenge) in the UK - there are hats available to throw in the ring.
2 Europe - would Germany like their Royal House back? and/or the opportunity to have a monarchy of Europe resurrected or removed?
3 Commonwealth and Empire issues
4 Upgrading of Honours - "Honi soit qui mal y pense" is not my expectation of chivalry, Knights are expected "to do" GOOD deeds for public good, common good etc - they should "earn" a right to be Knighted by excellence in something "good"/"beneficial"/"value added": landing a helicoptor/plane is not "in league of expectation" in my perception in any way and I can also understand why some would turn down an honour which misses the mark of expectation - the Order of the Garter might be better consigned to the history books and replaced with something else associated with being "Knighted" for a good reason. The Order of Merit is for excellence in intellect/science etc. Therefore the Queen/Parliament might find beneficial an opportunity to look at the pomp and ceremony associated with the position of Head of State and make some pertinent and necessary changes.



[Click here] Honi soit qui mal y pense (information)

[Click here] Dieu et mon droit (information)