The execution of Charles Stuart (Charles I of England) in 1649 sets a historical precedent for considering the removal of rights and freedoms as a serious offense against the people. Here's a case for drawing parallels between this event and modern-day concerns about erosion of rights and freedoms:

*Historical Context*
 

- *The English Civil War*: The conflict between the monarchy and Parliament led to the trial and execution of Charles I for "high treason" against his people. The charge was based on his actions, which included:
 

   - *Imposing arbitrary rule*: Charles I was accused of ruling without Parliament's consent, disregarding established laws and traditions.

   - *Levying taxes without consent*: He imposed taxes without Parliament's approval, which was seen as a violation of subjects' rights and liberties.
 

   - *Using force against his subjects*: Charles I was accused of using military force against his people, leading to bloodshed and suffering.

*Parallels to Modern-Day Concerns*
- *Erosion of Rights and Freedoms*: When governments or institutions remove or restrict fundamental rights and freedoms, such as free speech, expression, or assembly, it can be seen as a betrayal of the people's trust.
 

- *Abuse of Power*: The concentration of power and the disregard for established laws and procedures can lead to abuses of authority, undermining the rule of law and democratic principles.

*Treason Against the People*
- *Historical Precedent*: The execution of Charles I establishes a precedent for holding those in power accountable for their actions when they betray the trust of their people.

- *Modern-Day Implications*: Drawing on this historical precedent, one could argue that the removal of rights and freedoms without consent or justification can be considered a form of treason against the people.

*Conclusion*
The case of Charles I's execution serves as a reminder of the importance of protecting individual rights and freedoms. By recognising the historical parallels between the past and present, we can better understand the significance of preserving democratic principles and holding those in power accountable for their actions.

In the UK, common law plays a significant role in shaping legal principles, including those related to free speech. However, the relationship between common law and statutory law is complex.

While common law provides a foundation for certain rights and freedoms, Parliament has the authority to enact statutes that can modify or override common law principles. This is known as parliamentary supremacy.

In practice, this means that an Act of Parliament can indeed impact the exercise of free speech, even if it is rooted in common law. Courts may interpret statutes in light of common law principles, but ultimately, the statute takes precedence.

We're exploring this topic further for policy formulation along the following lines. Millions have died in protecting British rights and freedoms which are being removed by political ideologies

*LEXICON OF BRITISH COMMON LAW ACT*

*Preamble*

WHEREAS the common law of England and Wales has evolved over centuries to protect fundamental rights and liberties; AND WHEREAS it is essential to codify and safeguard these principles for future generations;

​

*Article I: Codification*
1. The Lexicon of British Common Law (hereinafter "the Lexicon") shall be established as a comprehensive codification of the fundamental principles and rights derived from the common law of England and Wales.
2. The Lexicon shall include, but not be limited to, principles relating to:
a. Freedom of speech and expression
b. Freedom of assembly and association
c. Protection against arbitrary detention and due process
d. Protection of property rights
e. Other fundamental rights and liberties

 

*Article II: Supremacy of Common Law*
1. The Lexicon shall have paramount authority in the interpretation and application of the law.
2. No statute or statutory instrument shall be construed to override or modify any principle or right codified in the Lexicon, unless:
a. The statute or statutory instrument explicitly states its intention to do so; AND
b. A national referendum has been held, and a majority of votes cast have approved the modification or override.
 

*Article III: Judicial Review*
1. The judiciary shall have the power to review and strike down any statute or statutory instrument that contravenes the Lexicon.
2. In exercising this power, the judiciary shall consider:
a. The plain meaning of the Lexicon
b. The legislative intent behind the statute or statutory instrument


*Article IV: Implementation and Enforcement*
1. The Lord Chancellor shall be responsible for ensuring the effective implementation and enforcement of the Lexicon.
2. The judiciary shall receive training on the application and interpretation of the Lexicon.
3. An oversight mechanism shall be established to monitor the implementation and enforcement of the Lexicon.

*Article V: Review and Revision*

1. The Lexicon shall be reviewed periodically to ensure its continued relevance and effectiveness.
2. Any proposed revisions to the Lexicon shall be subject to public consultation.


*Article VI: Transitional Provisions*
1. This Act shall come into force on a date passed to the Lord Chancellor.
2. Existing statutes and statutory instruments shall be reviewed and revised as necessary to ensure consistency with the Lexicon.

*Article VII: Citation*
This Act may be cited as the:

 

Lexicon of British Common Law Act [Year].

This proposed law aims to establish the Lexicon as a foundational document, protecting fundamental rights and liberties while providing a framework for their evolution and adaptation.

​

So, we are solidifying and codifying into the Lexicon of British Common Law.

enshrined within our articles of the Lexicon of British Common Law are the protection of FREE SPEECH, FREE EXPRESSION, FREE THOUGHT etc for every single human being on these beautiful British Islands. Everyone!

​

Now, we all have these rights and freedoms from birth, or we don't. Now, here's the constitutional problem. His Majesty and Her Majesty before himself were born into a Cromwellian golden cage of SILENCE. We either all have the rights of free speech, expression, thought, movement etc or we don't?

​

In evolving from this Cromwellian parliamentary democracy system into the 21st Century and enshrining British Rights and Freedoms within the Lexicon then it legally follows that the Lexicon protects His Majesty King Charles lll in exercising the British Birth rights as protected by the Lexicon. Being born British in Great Britain. We understand there will be contrarians citing balance of power etc. this is not a transfer of any such thing. it is a Briton exercising their British birth rights, in Britain. That's all.

The King cannot vote. If you are inspired by something the King said then keep listening. if you are minded not to listen, then just don't, you have that right too.

​

We would like to get to know more about the King as a centralising figure. We would be proposing His Majesty host weekly intellectual, informal free speech debates and interviews with intellectuals from all disciplines, medicine, psychology, sciences, social scientists, the arts, education, architecture, history, geology etc. We should get to know the King's charms, intellect and humour as our King.

 

The Buckingham Palace Debates

​