t


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 original form of the Oath was stated earlier in this document, and still has the force of statute law. However, at the coronations of both The Queen and her father George VI, the words of the Oath were changed to meet the needs of the Statute of Westminster, 1931, which granted autonomy to the dominions. The words used at these coronations did not have the force of statute law behind them, having been merely agreed between the leaders of the Church of England and the government of the day in each case. Both oaths were illegal, as The Times newspaper pointed out on both occasions. In any case, Parliament has no power under the Bill of Rights to interfere with the Coronation Oath as first enacted during the reign of Charles II.

 

Despite the huge constitutional issues raised by these events of 1937 and 1953, the essential words in the Oath sworn by The Queen were:

 

"…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 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."

Allott, The Courts and Parliament, 1979.


Top