Jus Peril – Is the Supreme Court overreaching?
24 September 2019
(1) R (on the application of Miller) (Appellant) v The Prime Minister (Respondent)
(1) Cherry and others (Respondents) v Advocate General for Scotland (Appellant) (Scotland)
Lady Hale, Lord Reed, Lord Kerr, Lord Wilson, Lord Carnwath, Lord Hodge, Lady Black, Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lady Arden, Lord Kitchin, Lord Sales
In her reading of the unanimous verdict of 11 Supreme Court Justices Lady Hale used the word ‘quite’ to elevate the word ‘exceptional’ to describe the circumstances the Supreme Court has been summoned to Judicially Review.
I was struck by the tone in a ruling which did not need or require such prefacing.
The Supreme Court has in my view made clear it was effecting a radical reformation of its place Constitutionally. It sought as has been increasingly apparent and brought into focus by Sir Jonathan Sumption in The Reith Lectures his observation of the Law intervening upon Democracy in making Political decisions through Justices ruling.
Wiki provides an insight
The rule of law is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as: “The authority and influence of law in society, especially when viewed as a constraint on individual and institutional behavior; (hence) the principle whereby all members of a society (including those in government) are considered equally subject to publicly disclosed legal codes and processes.”[2] The phrase “the rule of law” refers to a political situation, not to any specific legal rule.
Use of the phrase can be traced to 16th-century Britain, and in the following century the Scottish theologian Samuel Rutherford employed it in arguing against the divine right of kings.[3]
2. [2] Oxford English Dictionary online (accessed September 13, 2018; spelling Americanized). The phrase2] Oxford English Dictionary online (accessed September 13, 2018; spelling Americanized). The phrase “the rule of law” is also sometimes used in other senses. See Garner, Bryan A. (Editor in Chief). Black’s Law Dictionary, 9th Edition, p. 1448. (Thomson Reuters, 2009). ISBN 978-0-314-26578-4. Black’s provides five definitions of “rule of law”: the lead definition is “A substantive legal principle”; the second is the “supremacy of regular as opposed to arbitrary power”. “the rule of law” is also sometimes used in other senses. See Garner, Bryan A. (Editor in Chief). Black’s Law Dictionary, 9th Edition, p. 1448. (Thomson Reuters, 2009). ISBN 978-0-314-26578-4. Black’s provides five definitions of “rule of law”: the lead definition is “A substantive legal principle”; the second is the “supremacy of regular as opposed to arbitrary power”.
[3] Rutherford, Samuel. Lex, rex: the law and the prince, a dispute for the just prerogative of king and people, containing the reasons and causes of the defensive wars of the kingdom of Scotland, and of their expedition for the ayd and help of their brethren of England, p. 237 (1644): “The prince remaineth, even being a prince, a social creature, a man, as well as a king; one who must buy, sell, promise, contract, dispose: ergo, he is not regula regulans, but under rule of law …”
Samuel Rutherford – Of the dissenter tradition against rule by The Church of England.
Rev. Prof. Samuel Rutherford (or more correctly Rutherfurd), was born at Nisbet (now part of Crailing) [4], Roxburghshire, about 1600. It is an area, Roxburghshire, Selkirk and Peebles, my late brother David once stood for Parliament. Samuel Rutherford according to the record acted treasonably – After the Restoration he was one of the first marked out for persecution, his work Lex Rex was ordered by the Committee of Estates to be burnt at the Crosses of Edinburgh and St Andrews, and he was deprived of his office of Principal. Further, he was cited to appear before Parliament on a charge of treason, but he died 29th March 1661 [the date — 20th — on his tombstone is an error].
Establishing a New Establishment
In this 24/09/19 ruling the 11 Justices have overreached their power of Judgement in declaring by the non acceptance of The Queen as Head of State of being minded to assert the right of her Prime Minister To in his judgement to prorogue Parliment in order to assert the policies the Prime Minister sought to put in place in the Queens Speech as a joint establishment before Parliment.
Unsurprisingly this Supreme Court roster is replete comprehensively, with well educated elite scholars.
Lady Hale, Richmond High School for Girls.
Lord Reed, George Watson College.
Lord Kerr, St Colman’s College.
Lord Wilson, Bryanston School.
Lord Carnworth, Eton College.
Lord Hodge, Trinity College.
Lady Black, Penrhos College.
Lord Lloyd-Jones, Pontypridd Boys College.
Lady Arden, Huyton College.
Lord Kitchin, Oundle School.
Lord Sales, Royal Grammar School.
The assertion of the Supreme Court rules out the mind of the Sovereign to make as Head of State any judgement on the requests made by her Prime Minister. It is a removal of Sovereign principal and principle.
The establishment of Sovereignty has been brought to be null and void and not the ultimate power of Authority by the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court has in the words of The Leader of the House of Commons effected a ‘Constitutional Coup’ the like of which is unprecedented in the History of these Islands.
The Judgement
The Supreme Court used an obscure and 300 year old piece of Scottish Law. It belongs within the Scottish ‘claim of rights’.
The English Law of the Supreme Court has set aside the ‘bill of rights’ for England and I presume Wales in its use of the Scottish established principle .
In view of the Supreme Court judgement the Justices have expanded the Great British Law to be inclusive of both a ‘chain of rights’ and a ‘bill of rights’.
This is a precedent involving in the judgement Scottish Law which is in use in the absence within the English bill of rights of such a rule of law. This establishes union of the two separate Legal systems hitherto independent. By so doing the Scottish Devolved Government in the event of a vote to dissolve its nation from Great Britain by referendum would leave the Supreme without the ability to use the Law it relies on in this judgement.
Political Reformation
This indicates the politicalisation of the Law Courts which sets in train new Constitutional and Political Law which is not based in Parliamentary Law or made by Parliament by representatives of the people acting under Sovereign Supremacy not Court Supremacy.
The people have been denied their Sovereign leaders prerogative to assert the wishes so joined by herself and her Prime Minister in the functionality of her Parliment.
The Supreme Court has decided the Head of State is a mere figurehead and the Courts of Justice are the Supreme Authority.
Conclusive Reformation
The conclusion is the Constitution is for Law not Parliment to provide.
This is therefore the dissolution of Sovereign Rule over Parliment Rule.
The Head of State is sent; a ruling so to be unauthoritative, by the Supreme Court as the judgement is her Parliment must and can sit without the authority of the Head of State.
The assertion is The Queen is merely a notional figure. This is itself derogatory and an opinion not based in fact. The Queen has a position itself unique and deserving of the utmost respect. The Supreme Court diminish their own status in taking that opinionated view.
Rule of Law in the UK
For the Law to exist it is the will of the Sovereign to authorise the will of Parliment in its representations by Election to produce the joint functionality of these Islands, GB and NI.
Northern Ireland and The Belfast Agreement
It remains noted that the purpose of The Belfast Agreement, referred to in the manner of its date of inception as The Good Friday Agreement a word stands out before all others.
It is this – ‘strategic’.
The reason it is of the utmost importance is the placing in the agreement of the intention, should it be the will of the people, not the UK Parliment, to remove itself by Election from the UK.
The UK has therefore given indication of it having no longer any ‘strategic’ interest in Northern Ireland. For a wider historical viewpoint I have added a pocket 1177, onward John de Courci bibliographic sourced from present reclaimed accounts. This is seen in the footnotes.
What Strategic Interest?
From the above it is apparent without question that the UK had strategic interest in Northern Ireland before that statement.
The strategic interest was the control by proxy of Ireland as a non threatening independent state which would be tied to the UK by the formalised agreement on the formation of the ROI and NI and not as previously, at risk of the Unity of Ireland being a location for a Republic empowered as a Socialist Country which could provide a template for the overthrow of the Head of the UK State and Sovereignty itself.
Sovereignty in use
The fact is the Sovereignty was the ‘Strategic’ hold held by the UK in times of political uncertainty through the era of ‘the troubles’ and before then, the resolution of British occupation of Ireland dating from 1177, a whole and individual country without a Sovereign.
Independence
In the Second World War Ireland was neutral for a reason. It was not an imperial state and was not under immediate threat, of being occupied in the period war was developing, by a foreign country. The participants from Ireland in the Second World War were on a voluntary basis.
Ireland had participated according to reports; Operation JB, by former British Secret agents, in allowing U-Boats to be refuelled in Lough Foyle and the German nation also had an emissary office in Dublin which allowed back channel discussions and conversations to resolve he conflict.
Exaggerate and simplify is the scope of journalism. Is that the same in the writing of Historical records?
The Supreme Court have as a set of thinkers have exposed a fault line in going through logically to mine the origins of the State. Within it is not an edict, that is a purity of description but a dependence on the philosophical outcomes previously manned into human relations within these islands. They apply the force given to them in expressing not definitively but as a ruling the place in a moment of law putting structure and form to something they have deduced in the present. They avail upon thought which is manifested by the reasoning that interceded in an earlier period without, through modifications or reformation the law of the land.
Nutshells
The interesting thing is the origins in religiosity of the kernel of their ‘in a nutshell’ collective agreement.
David Hume and John Locke were of immense influence in the formation of principles of justice and therefore compliance with edict as pursued in the land. A Court of Judgement was approved by the Sovereign reign to put to effect their agreement to such principles which identifies their moral and intellectual integrity. The rule of law was therefore a precedent set by power for power and allowed the acceptance and implementation of edicts to prevail to societal benefit. Or so it seemed. Certain privileges including a stays within education and inheritance along with appointments were based on how effective compliance lay within the person in both understanding the establishment and system they prevailed upon for societal need. That need was expressed by Religion in the period that the 11 judges hark back to as the footstool on which they eat their wearisome deliberations. That religion was embedded in the thinking inherent in the Bible in all it forms with Gnostic and the less coherent and exacting spiritual scientific structures of transcendental subjectivity that bore no practical and therefore mediations able to be used in the order of humanity’s improved lot. The sciences and religious therefore clashed and met somewhere in the middle.
The core the nub whatever its perceived as, however deduced, was in itself a hugely important doctrine which became the substance and gift of the state that controlled by its honorific blessed rule, the religious coherence of what could be held in the land, namely The Church of England. Samuel Rutherford was part of a ‘Scottish’ Enlightenment lent virtue by the French and other liberal; in its reforming sense, thoughts. It is as if and I hold this myself to be hugely significant ‘Religion cannot divide, it converges on the same spirit’. Without the Enlightenment there would be no opposition to the Church of England whose authority in the eyes of the State are the Supreme basis of all that descend from it. Legally and physically.
The Dissenters were from all parts of these Islands, Welsh, Scots, English and Irish. The tradition in Northern Ireland became the non-subscribing Church. The non-subscribing meaning is defined by the Church not signing as Presbyterian Rules require, subscribing to the Westminster Covenant.
The simple truth at the heart of this Religious Presbyterian faith, the subscribing faith, in its conventional form is inclusive of a doctrine which believes, through signing up to The Westminster Covenant, the Pope as an anti-christ which is in essence an unchristian edit.
Paradoxically it may have been the very reason the advance of the Age of Enlightenment took hold.
There was a part of a ‘Scottish’ Enlightenment lent virtue by the French and other liberal thinkers and Philosophers. It is debatable what Nation; Ireland or Great Britain the Philosopher Francis Hutchenson, born in Killyleagh, Co. Down in 1111 was ‘attached’ to;
Religiously in its reforming sense, thoughts converged as found material in the Word. It is as if and I hold this myself to be hugely significant ‘Religion cannot divide, it converges on the same spirit’. Without the Enlightenment there would be no opposition to the Church of England whose authority in the eyes of the State are the Supreme basis of all that descend from it. Legally and physically.
Across these islands and in sympathy with the ethos of Religious freedom appearing in France, Dissenters were beginning to assert the ideas in a passively and coherent way which unsettled the ‘yoke’ of Great Britain and it’s Colonialism.
The Dissenters were from all parts of these Islands, Welsh, Scots, English and Irish. The tradition in Northern Ireland became the non-subscribing Church. The non-subscribing meaning is defined by the Church not signing as Presbyterian Rules require, subscribing to the Westminster Covenant.
The simple truth at the heart of this Religious Presbyterian faith, the subscribing faith, in its conventional form is inclusive of a doctrine which believes, through signing up to The Westminster Covenant, the Pope as an anti-christ which is in essence an unchristian edit.
For the Parliment of the UK formed on the basis of a Religious overriding moral and ethical identity with State endorsement that allows the reversal in power onto Sovereignty it creates a Parliment of no limits. The Law is Sovereign Law enabled by the activities of the instruments of its power. The Commons and Lords. The conformity is by dint of alliances to concepts of right and wrong and with faith or without that is held in thought as the adopted Church itself adopted by the rule of Kings as Samuel Rutherford once described it.
As Lady Hale pronounced with use of the word ‘quite‘ the more potent and stone under which authority is held and consumed is the word ‘divine‘. I would be wrong to, though am tempted, to use the description ‘magnificent’ in front of divine but it creates the trap of the logic of Law pertaining other than to precise agreed meaning. The flaw also seen in the Lady Hale conflation that exposes so much.
Religious Laylines
In learning about existence the human enters a world as a corrupt body weighing done on its soul. Righteousness has been seen as a survival mechanism since mankind first appeared. Skirmishes and Violence as manifestation in part of the ‘corruption’ that trait to not listen to the inner soul, became suppressed by common food and the authority of Righteousness was claimed by the Religious.
Replications of a state of grace were symbolised and franked onto cities and tribes as they formed a garden of peace. The faith replaced gods of astronomy and the lay lines were forgotten and replaced by the possession of belief systems themselves lucid and formulaic. The vocabulary fell on the people as order. When Augustine and others replaced the belief systems of Pharaohs and rulers of tribes the semblance of common purposes overlapped and grew in Western Christianity and outran Eastern Religious concepts. Of course that summary is a gross generalisation but I put it in that way to illustrate the entry of Religious Power alongside Temporal Power as an expedient compact unrivalled and therefore dominated by the Religious and therefore Papal, Roman ideology.
There are numerous examples and collisions of time based conclusions ,ade into approximations of truth in the context of Law.
Aristotle was the lode stone that indicated there were alternative views equal and more compatible with the human condition however and this paradox became visible and remains visible in difference.
Gelasius preceded the emergence of the Bible and analysis of the threat and peril that it would replace as thought in stone. Then the sacred authority [auctoritas] of priesthood and the royal power [potestas] had an unsettling period of transition which was filled by the eminence of the Bible.
The sectarianism of theology and secular rights are found in the tapestry of Law.
The result is disappointment and divergence occur. The Law exists upon agreement and the onus of delivering that Law is left to a simple odd number.
Such apparently secular Countries and Communities as Korea and China have long since discarded the rule of moral and ethical authority by creating their version of the rule of Law. Absent of divinity. There is a full some charge of discarding the divine in open societies also.
Phillip IV and Fairness
If Lawyers have a smugness and that is too harsh a claim, it could arise in the way Law has impinged on Religion and Theology to the point their cohorts were spoiling for a role and investiture in the political thinking that came from the plenitude of power advancing in the world as vision alongside science and university according theory to the societies hungry for peace and prosperity. These were the belief systems generating while Phillip IV (Philip the Fair?) and irony upon irony (the fair arising from the fair complexion not complex truth) Innocent III. Candidates for giving extremis to the politic. Extremism not having been uncommonly a trait or failure humans expressed in the corrupt self.
If is easy to relate to the concordat seen in Decretales 1.15.1 ; ‘for the difference between the priestly dignity and the royal is as great as the distance between the Sun and the Moon.‘ In that world they had only that measure and it is the case the infinity is greater in our present understanding, beyond our knowledge and the interstellar. The divine occupies the corrupt of priest and royal whole setting differences beyond imagination in the polar opposites of divinity each brings mankind.
What Non-Subscribing entails.
In the Non-Subscribing Faith the ethos takes the form of nothing existing between the creator and us. That meaning is in itself open to the interpretation any individual wishes to attach to it and their faith is individually formed with a shared inclusivity as a means of absorbing spiritual life alongside physical life.
The placing of a Covenant as a device to attain faith entry is an anathema in a sense.
Keeping faith
I am a regular Church goer and belong to a non-subscribing Church, not as a member but as an expression of community where thoughts are gathered and found in individual collective experiences acknowledging the individual has the oversight of their own mind and converge in common thought as a means to adhere to the human condition placed in us by means we have no proof of.
Since the decision by the law Lord’s and Lady’s the outworking in people consumed by the authority it creates have been prominently and purposely obtaining some hubris and gravitas in relation to their own view, whatever that might be. Such is the stirring of Media and communication of a variation of beliefs.
The media have unwrapped the meaning without as far as I can see taken any direct notice of the question of Religion and State, that have over centuries preceding the 1689 Samuel Rutherford observances and the question was seriously created in the Lawful sense around the twelfth Century.
The Church of Who
The Church of England relies on the advance of their subjects from one world to the next by compliant measure with their set values.
As I noted before this is not to say they are Christian as they would confess or profess to be. No Christian slays others in the name of Jesus or any dynamic of theology.
In the writing of Niccolò Machiavelli ‘The Prince’ powers of goodwill were set against power for powers sake. In his treatise he as is his predilection, setting anti-thesis and generalisation to the fore as a method to advance arguments. Placing the readings to be testament to subsequent rulers acquiring his methods and elliptical curvature of circular things he brings nevertheless a degree of exposure to the malaise and disfigurement of any virtue the Religious may have conceived, however his methods of projecting it were often exaggerated.
In ‘The Prince’ iii. Composite Principalities; while a Florentine state advisor, probably, Machiavelli writes – ‘….disorders chiefly arise because of one natural difficulty always encountered in new principalities. What happens is that men willingly change their ruler, expecting to fare better. This induces them to take up arms against him; but they only deceive themselves, and they learn from experience that they have made matters worse.’
How obvious is this in conflicts new and renewed along former dissolution?
That idea of principalities bore down on the Machiavellian desire for the formation of an Italy divided by five powers and the Papacy. The realm he constructed was the acquisition of ‘The Prince’ envied in the heirachy of Spain in advance of Italy. Legal and Physical ran hand in hand and always do. Primacy achieved by rule of Law in the Doctrine of the rule of Kings. The second part the ownership of property and land at the behest of followers of the ruler.
Whereas William Shakespeare introduced and possibly provides an arc for the English; he being Catholic in some form, knew the symbols of paradox and earthly wisdom taken ahead of Godly art which was noble and divine. ‘The Tempest’ invents an island borne of disharmony and unity. Niccolò Machiavelli was sans regard for divinity or goodness and deceived himself, as he claimed deception troubles others, in the seeking of fortune and power which is the myth Gods make in and of time. Whatever form or entity that will be, that nature resolves all.
Notorious Belief
Belief systems are scarcely wise enough to envelop such foresight as the Age of Enlightenment by human reasoning but provide the arid terrain of such finality astrophysics describes. Arid in the sense all is gone elsewhere from our earthly existence.
Eschatology is a realisation of the encounter with death.
The word arises from the Greek ἔσχατος eschatos meaning “last” and -logy meaning “the study of”, and first appeared in English around 1844. The Oxford English Dictionary defines eschatology as “the part of theology concerned with death, judgment, and the final destiny of the soul and of humankind“.
Where the Bible open as it is to the Resurrection the binding destiny of a departure from life and the transience of the Soul is held as belief by many awaiting the saviour.
Bookish thoughts
I have yet to read the dystopian fiction ‘The Testaments’ by Margaret Atwood who in the course of releasing her book lost her partner of many years Graeme Gibson novelist (Five Legs: 1969) and fellow Canadian whose writings were considered as liberating of nature and environment through his unorthodoxy.
By beginning with the futuristic science laden prophecy of a divided world Margaret Atwood in ‘The Handmaids Tale’ she provided an alternate despairing fiction as both a warning and concurrent prophecy in delivering the wildfire of mankind/womankind in a conspiracy of belief without honour. False honour and liberty is attained at a cost and complicity in it are the humans at the top of the survivalists arc. By introducing us to this the continuation is surveyed as advanced some twenty years on.
The wintertide is enclosing the world while seeing it from the perspective of women. Unlike Niccolò Machiavelli and other rules based institutions this is akin to the retelling of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. The parables may exist in ‘The Testaments’ with each Testament telling a story from a different viewpoint though that is not a view outworking from reading the book but a passing conjecture. The Machiavellian warning is rulers must be conscious of being internal subversion from his subjects; and external aggression by foreign powers. Julius Caesar’s rule by extravagant liberty contrasts with the Machiavellian assertion nobility should be seen honouring property avoiding also rapacious interest in women in societies alliances.
The conjecture of passage from the promised land in exile and return to expel the sins of the world seems plausible but how is it possible except by authoritarian rule and then morals and ethics fail it.
How does the author convey the ailment of a survivalist authoritarian society seemingly built on the pursuit, perversely of purity and exemplar godlike creation of life? Could the heaven be achieved on earth?
The thesis presumed is the impossibility of it as is seen and exposed and the nature of existence is beyond the beyond, a loose term often relied on by poets. Understanding power Niccolò Machiavelli places in ‘Room 101’ virtue, realising in his simple basic treatise ‘in order to maintain his state he is often forced to act in defiance of good faith, of charity, of kindness, of Religion. Quite a catastrophic outcome for the people, that the ruler, if they are to retain power, must at times resort to evil. A circus of vanities is liberated and notoriety in appearances to be doing good are made like Pepper’s ghost seen but not reality. Playing on deceiving the people by appearances of virtue while silences are heard and noises off ignored through patronage. That requires a version of Religion faithful to Sovereignty.
As Julius Caesar found there is always one who is willing to do the deed and at the Last Supper the knowledge Jesus took to the table was that in his midst betrayal was already orchestrated and his comfort was the Word he revealed.
Reason and Personality
Since the decision by the law Lord’s and Lady’s the outworking in people consumed by the authority it creates have been prominently and purposely obtaining some hubris and gravitas in relation to their own view, whatever that might be.
Lords aleaping
The very structure of society in the UK has many flaws and amongst the leading contenders is the element of class differences which undoubtedly exists and it manifests in the establishment. What is never put across in debate however are the day to day efforts in all classes of good works and the Eton label is but one example. Amnesty International and Friends of the Earth founders were ex-Eton and they carry none of the entitlements Boris and lots of his mates seem to. The point is it is a varied world and all good is good wherever it obtains from. If only they were conscious of it when learning at the higher privileged levels there might be more good to come from that element.
From The Times I snapped this yesterday. (Judges not necessarily Lords)
Seditious by CoE
‘A legal revolution and it’s never been arrived at before.‘
A Sir Jonathan Sumption quote on the judgement arrived at.
While people go after the personalities and profiling the Judges the use of person becomes a new aspect which the Supreme Court unfortunately presents. Ego is invoked as a context for verdict. The bossy (allegedly) Lady Hale overstretched by not only appearing in a garb which matches the pitiful T. May reliance on decorative ornamentation, her role and its presumably allowed by dint of gender but is actually a diminution of what should be balanced and scaled. The decorum seen in Courts were subverted so why is this any different? Apparently art gym and domestic science are not her skills but a bully tendency and compelling others to blackmail her is not a child’s friendly characterisation coming through others experiences of the Law Chief in their discoveries. Then not to have anything except teaching the Law and not having external experience around the use of the industry capitalist et al add to blunt the presentation. Their is unusually a quotient of difference among Judges. Law should not split along highly divide lines as it ought to be clear and calculating holding moral and ethical choices inherently present to be availed upon.
That provides the 11 ruling as being only the eventual evidential conclusion Sir Jonathon Sumption has arrived at. The exactitude of Law is found in and entrapped by the Sovereign pinnacle the establishment has embodied.
Sir Jonathan Sumption reveals, of his working with Lady Hale, despite past disagreements he has the view Lady Hale has not overstretched. In absolute agreement I think this points to the only possible judgement being arrived at as it is Sovereignty unalloyed.
In a small way connections to this Judgement and how it arose I read another fine judgement by a leading commentator. Of the advance of the British insurgency perceptions, actually reinforcing the EU insecure intransigence soon to be taken apart, is fostered here and elsewhere by ‘the thought police of the multilateral establishment.
It reads into it the same observation the Supreme Court point to which is on both local and globally the ‘self-preservation and aggrandisement as international solidarity and cooperation.’ The foundation of multilateral organisations charged with preserving world order has imploded. Moderation and pragmatic deployment of the best available outcomes for many is no longer at play. The moral authority of judges relies on the Law itself constructed not in the Age of Enlightenment from where the judgement came; its failure being the Samuel Rutherford compulsion to make others write into the Word an exception the then and now conceit riven Church of England advances human misery in its ruling practice.
Storm in a Changing climate
The media have unwrapped the meaning without, as far as I can see, having taken any direct notice of the question of Religion and State, that have over centuries preceding the 1689 Samuel Rutherford observances and the question was seriously created in the Lawful sense around 1300 and it is ‘loosely’ in the Age before 1050 a conflab based on patronage which in anticipated ways broke down and became ‘disintegrated’ until other autocratic measures appeared. In the history I have read I notice the Germanic assaults on Roman power which may have arise in some part in the Middle Eastern insurgence against Roman in earlier times. This might appear another thread of G.B. Politics and the overthrow of Hitler and a resolution found in E.U. Agreements becoming the forerunner of institutional polarity. The notion held here is that the anti-E.U. is no more than that natural outworking and hopefully a truthful return to Grace.
It is a Grace obtained by the Swedish Greta Thunberg whole as is well documented the people she names and confronts are at the very destruction of the virtues the proclaim to be in charge of. That is the Law of Religious freedoms and the Word as reconciled by State.
‘Ordet’ is the Word and it’s Grace is present in Greta Thunberg.
Footnote/s
I use the observations of the following article in part of my constructing the arguments above.
Global elites mock anti-EU feeling at their peril. by Jeremy Warner
follow on Twitter or see at telegraph.co.uk/opinion
Sources/Acknowledgements
Even the Telegraph title is clever and interesting. Instead of speaking only of the UK’s democratically expressed anti-EU feeling which is the reason Brexit exists, it speaks of the Global historic change across methods of creating a pragmatic moral and progressive future.
Boris and Prometheus is a hypothesis and prophecy understood by Jeremy Warner who I continue to see as being very astute on Political and Societal movements in World Politics as constructed for a readership that is not Cabalist, Papist, Royalist but Capitalist before all else usually.
I wonder what he thinks of the Sovereignty and adherence thereto that causes us such grief and harm. It may not be in place were it not for Queen Elizabeth II who has seen and dealt with so much in her lifetime. In other words the UK is largely accepting of the figurehead for the focus it provides without understanding its implications in the running of a society based on rule and division which the two party system (pros-cons) heralds in.
Our nearest neighbour and ally being France succumbed after the Second World War to strident Communism as a binding source as the acts of bravery in the French resistance came from the left politic and it was an antidote to the Gaullist ideals which subsequently overtook them. They choose that route as it was a infant version never realised even at their ‘69 soft revolution.
I also make use of ideas cultivated in the writings The Crisis of Church and State 1050-1300 by Brian Tierney and offerings from the partially sceptical community commons Wikipedia for what it’s worth.
Origin of Borders and Ireland’s woes – some of them!
On the British occupation of Ireland many take it back to the very rampaging and warring by John de Courcy. His motivations are and remain unclear except his own quest for power of some kind. Obedient and disobedient to Kings of some standing eventually the Vision of Religion overtook him and this was also a source of his downfall.
This is a version of his story. The 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica
Who would dare to disagree?
‘COURCI, JOHN DE (d. 1219?), Anglo-Norman conqueror of Ulster, was a member of a celebrated Norman family of Oxfordshire and Somersetshire, whose parentage is unknown, and around whose career a mass of legend has grown up. It would appear that he accompanied William Fitz-Aldelm to Ireland when the latter, after the death of Strongbow, was sent thither by Henry II., and that he immediately headed an expedition from Dublin to Ulster, where he took Downpatrick, the capital of the northern kingdom. After some years of desultory fighting de Courci established his power over that part of Ulster comprised in the modern counties of Antrim and Down, throughout which he built a number of castles, where his vassals, known as “the barons of Ulster,” held sway over the native tribes. After the accession of Richard I., de Courci in conjunction with William de Lacy appears in some way to have offended the king by his proceedings in Ireland. De Lacy quickly made his peace with Richard, while de Courci defied him; and the subsequent history of the latter consisted mainly in the vicissitudes of a lasting feud with the de Lacys. In 1204 Hugh de Lacy utterly defeated de Courci in battle, and took him prisoner. De Courci, however, soon obtained his liberty, probably by giving hostages as security for a promise of submission which he failed to carry out, seeking an asylum instead with the O’Neills of Tyrone. He again appeared in arms on hearing that Hugh de Lacy had obtained a grant of Ulster with the title of earl; and in alliance with the king of Man he ravaged the territory of Down; but was completely routed by Walter de Lacy, and disappeared from the scene till 1207, when he obtained permission to return to England. In 1210 he was in favour with King John, from whom he received a pension, and whom he accompanied to Ireland. There is some indication of his having sided with John in his struggle with the barons; but of the later history of de Courci little is known. He probably died in the summer of 1219. Both de Courci and his wife Affreca were benefactors of the church, and founded several abbeys and priories in Ulster.
A story is told that de Courci when imprisoned in the Tower volunteered to act as champion for King John in single combat against a knight representing Philip Augustus of France; that when he appeared in the lists his French opponent fled in panic; whereupon de Courci, to gratify the French king’s desire to witness his prowess, “cleft a massive helmet in twain at a single blow,” a feat for which he was rewarded by a grant of the privilege for himself and his heirs to remain covered in the presence of the king and all future sovereigns of England. This tale, which still finds a place in Burke’s Peerage in the account of the baron Kingsale, a descendant of the de Courci family, is a legend without historic foundation which did not obtain currency till centuries after John de Courci’s death. The statement that he was created earl of Ulster, and that he was thus “the first Englishman dignified with an Irish title of honour,” is equally devoid of foundation. John de Courci left no legitimate children.’
See J. H. Round’s art. “Courci, John de,” in Dictionary of National Biography, vol. xii. (London, 1887), to which is added a bibliography of the original and later authorities for the life of de Courci.
All views are my own in this essay.
John Graham
3 October 2019
Belfast
Not a widget!
To make a donation to the blog use
Naked hubris called out
johngrahamblog 