quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

That was a few pages back MH - you might think its a declaration of independence, you might even think there's a peace treaty but in fact the key words used in both documents to support your position have changed their meaning contrariwise in the centuries since such that the first is a declaration of undying love, loyalty and devotion and the second a trust document for the royal estate known as the USA.

And of course the reason why top historians and lawyers, and even top law historians keep all this quiet is because theyre in on the conspiracy and on the payroll of the Queen. Apparently I should get some papers towards the end of my LLB course whereby I sign on too, with the encouragement of MI5 disappearing me if I should refuse.

E

they dont exactly teach the history of law or that kind of depth in any law school that I know of.  Their focus is on form because in most cases the focus of the ocurt is form,

quote:

ORIGINAL: thornhappy

There are history of law classes at HLS.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead
As for the king giving up title to the land, have you ever heard of the declaration of independence?

When did the king sign that one?

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead
As for the king giving up title to the land, have you ever heard of the declaration of independence?

When did the king sign that one?

Where should the king have signed it? By that time the king should have no power to make such a commitment on behalf of Britain except as its figurehead, just the same as he should lack power to declare war. Whilst it is constitutionally customary for the monarch to do these things, he/she does so (and may do so) only on the direction of the Parliament. Thus, as long as the treaty were signed by the lawfully nominated and empowered representatives of Parliament, their signatures bound Britain.

E

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

You're wasting your time, Ellen: Real0ne seems to think that because there's a Queen in the UK, the entire population are mere serfs (even the aristos with titles of their own, a stipend from the civil list and the deeds to half of Hampshire). It's a vastly inferior system compared to the RomanAmerican approach of electing an Emperor whose word is law for four years, and eight years if he gets lucky, because Americans get to vote on which hugely wealthy and influential blueblooded political families can put forwards candidates for the Presidency.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: thornhappy

There are history of law classes at HLS.

are you like ok?

that and a buck and you can buy a cup of coffee.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

You've already been given the information you need RO, but here is a more clarified version

1) the Declaration Of Breda - issued by Charles Stuart in anticipation of his restoration as Charles II

by which upon the word of a king, we will be advised."
Red Herring

2) the Restoration Settlement 1660
History Learning Site > Stuart England > The Restoration Settlement
The Restoration Settlement led to Charles Stuart being proclaimed King Charles II of England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland on May 8th, 1660. The new king landed at Dover on May 26th. For eleven years, there had been no monarchy but the Restoration Settlement brought back from exile the son of the beheaded Charles I..
Another red herring

3) Tenures Abolition Act 1660
More importantly, s 8 of the 1660 Act allowed the father of a child under 21 and not married at the time of his death to appoint by will or deed a guardian for his child in the event of the father’s death. The guardianship of a male child continued to the age of 21 even if the child subsequently married.
another red herring

4) Coronation Oath Act 1688
An Act for Establishing the Coronation Oath.Oath heretofore framed in doubtful Words. Whereas by the Law and Ancient Usage of this Realme the Kings and Queens thereof have taken a Solemne Oath upon the Evangelists at Their respective Coronations to maintaine the Statutes Laws and Customs of the said Realme and all the People and Inhabitants thereof in their Spirituall and Civill Rights and Properties But forasmuch as the Oath itselfe on such Occasion Administred hath heretofore beene framed in doubtfull Words and Expressions with relation to ancient Laws and Constitutions at this time unknowne To the end therefore that One Uniforme Oath may be in all Times to come taken by the Kings and Queens of this Realme and to Them respectively Adminstred at the times of Their and every of Their Coronation.
getting warmer but we dont forget that the king/queens statutized the their personal laws so what changed?

5) Bill Of Rights 1689
Bill of Rights 1689
Click here for more free books!
(1689) British law, one of the basic instruments of the British constitution. It incorporated the provisions of the Declaration of Rights, which William III and Mary II accepted upon taking the throne. Its main purpose was to declare illegal various practices of James II, such as the royal prerogative of dispensing with the law in certain cases. The result of a long struggle between the Stuart kings and the English people and Parliament, it made the monarchy clearly conditional on the will of Parliament and provided freedom from arbitrary government. It also dealt with the succession to the throne.


and here, a summary of the latter part of the period - which started in 1641 with the first English Civil War, from Wiki

The Glorious Revolution of 1688 is considered by some as being one of the most important events in the long evolution of the respective powers of Parliament and the Crown in England. With the passage of the Bill of Rights, it stamped out once and for all any possibility of a Catholic monarchy, and ended moves towards absolute monarchy in the British kingdoms by circumscribing the monarch's powers. These powers were greatly restricted; he or she could no longer suspend laws, levy taxes, make royal appointments, or maintain a standing army during peacetime without Parliament's permission — to this day the Army is known as the "British Army" not the "Royal Army" as it is, in some sense, Parliament's Army and not that of the King. (This is, however, a complex issue, as the Crown remained—and remains—the source of all executive authority in the British army, with legal implications for unlawful orders etc.[112]) Since 1689, government under a system of constitutional monarchy in England, and later the United Kingdom, has been uninterrupted. Since then, Parliament's power has steadily increased while the Crown's has steadily declined.

What you singularly fail to appreciate is the importance of this period from the 1640s through to the close of the 17th century, in changing the constitutional arrangements of the UK, most notably in disenfranchising the monarch of much of his/her power and setting the stage for this power to be further diminished in the centuries since, with Parliament taking it on. If you will observe this period of our history, you will also perhaps discern why and how the US came into being as a progression of the same movement in the century following. Also see "the Enlightenment".

E