British injustices may eventually lead to a review of the present lack of a written constitution, most especially the way the police operate as a form of Gestapo, to quash the reporting of crimes. It does not help that Prince Andrew is ducking and diving amid a sex scandal. With Harry and Megan absent, that leaves William and Kate, and although they do good works on the environmental front, it is alleged that they are unlikely to reform the UK, but rather carry on, business as usual. It goes without saying the Prince Charles is anything but up for reform.

Another bone of contention is Boris Johnson being caught lying about proroguing of parliament, without redress from Buckingham Palace, leaving the system wide open and demonstrably corrupt to the core with cronyism.

During World War Two, the young Elizabeth was an ambulance driver, especially hazardous in London during the Blitz. One can imagine that having lived through such perilous times, the Monarch may take a different view to many people, who cannot remember that far back. From that point of view, and perhaps with some confusion generated by Mr Blair, in his interpretation and delivery on the situation, one might imagine that a Queen with children having served in the armed forces, might feel sorry for the former Prime Minister, without realizing the full implications as to War Crimes.

What a shocker. That the Queen and the present Government under Boris Johnson, might think is it appropriate to reward a former Prime Minister with a KG, when he stands accused of War Crimes and Genocide. The gesture tends to underpin the thinking of the present Monarch, telling us how out of touch she is with the wishes of the people.

In no way can the invasion of Iraq be seen as a 'noble' cause. To the contrary, most British people hang their heads in shame and express outrage, that Tony Blair sought to invade another country using false intelligence, as part of his warmonger posturing with George Bush, so deceiving parliament and the people. We assume, unless advised to the contrary, that Her Majesty must have been privy to the invasion, as her Prime Minister would surely have sought authorization at the highest level in the United Kingdom.

The point here is that with so much corruption surfacing from the present administration, then backdated to 2003 with this award, it is clear that as things stand in the UK, the system is corrupt to the core - to quote a Member of Parliament and the associated Media Reports.

Surely then, now is the time for an overhaul of a system that uses the honours system to reward other injustices, perpetuated by the fact that in England, we have no right to an Effective Remedy, as per Article 13 of the European Convention. In Britain the individual who is wronged is disregarded as unimportant collateral damage. But under international Human Rights legislation, the opposite is true. The rights of the individual are paramount, especially where it concerns loss of liberty. In the UK there is no right of appeal for those wrongly convicted. The Brits use a single judge system, who it appears is normally rewarded by the honours system, for making it appear that injustice in England is very small. When in fact, SLAPP actions abound, for the more serious allegations and failures to investigate, identified by whoever - who then becomes a target of the State, to protect the State. So making the Crown seem all shiny and bright.

SOFTIE - Many would agree that Adolf Hitler was a softie, or amateur butcher, compared to the Tony Blair, in terms of human rights violations and the mass murder or displacement of innocent Iraqis civilians.

CHILCOT REPORT - IRAQ INQUIRY

ARGUMENT

The Chilcot Report which is also known as the Iraq inquiry was launched to shed light on the basis of the involvement of the UK in the Iraq war of 2003. This effort was instigated by then Prime Minister Gordon Brown.

According to this report, British intelligence services have delivered flawed information on the alleged weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) in hand of the then President of Iraq, Saddam Hussein. The report negatively assesses the ability of certain senior officials of the MI6 and the Joint Intelligence Committee to handle the suspicion of Hussein disposing of WMDs that pose an international threat to peace. It is pointed out that there was not enough consideration of the possibility that Hussein shed the WMDs which was later revealed to be the case.

Tony Blair based his decision-making on this flawed information that was provided to him by his own security services. After assessing the dossier that was presented in September 2002, he announces to the public that he can:

 “establish beyond doubt”

.. that Saddam Hussein is continuing to produce weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. But that was not quite accurate, as any former barrister would know. It was at best misleading.

This conclusion which is seen as an imminent threat to global peace served as the British justification to go to war.

It can thus be considered that Blair acted in his best intentions when he was led to believe that Iraq poses an imminent threat due to the intelligence that was provided to him. One can assume that he was not aware of the flaws of the report at the time at which he made the decision to go to war in Iraq along with the United States.

Under this line of reasoning, Blair shouldn’t be held responsible for the devastating consequences of the Iraq war.

COUNTER ARGUMENT

The flawed intelligence that was presented to Tony Blair was knowingly presented in a way that would make it seem as though going to war is the only possibility.

Incriminating factors for Blair are that the Chilcot report accords him personal responsibility, especially for allegedly ignoring certain important facts in the dossier of 2002.

Blair is not independent from the production of the intelligence that he used as a justification; he authored the foreword of the 2002 dossier which shows his implication. The entire assessment of the 2002 dossier conveys the impression of an intelligence that has severe blind spots for certain facts and that seeks to make a case that allows to go to war.

Even if Blair was presented with false information, it does not justify the breaches of the UK with International Law to conduct an intervention into a sovereign state.

Crimes committed by a nation against it's own citizens are dealt with by the International Criminal Court, as per the Rome Statute. This is where the State concerned refuses to accept they are acting illegally. Nobody is above the law, including royalty by birth.

The Most Noble Order of the Garter is an order of chivalry founded by Edward III of England in 1348. It is the most senior order of knighthood in the British honours system, outranked in precedence only by the Victoria Cross and the George Cross. The Order of the Garter is dedicated to the image and arms of Saint George, England's patron saint.

Appointments are at the sovereign's sole discretion and are usually in recognition of a national contribution, for public service, or for personal service to the sovereign. Membership of the order is limited to the sovereign, the Prince of Wales, and no more than 24 living members, or Companions. The order also includes supernumerary knights and ladies (e.g., members of the British royal family and foreign monarchs).

The order's emblem is a garter with the motto Honi soit qui mal y pense (Middle French: "Shame on him who thinks evil of it") in gold lettering. Members of the order wear it on ceremonial occasions.

Membership in the Order is strictly limited and includes the Monarch, the Prince of Wales, not more than 24 companion members, and various supernumerary members. The monarch alone can grant membership. Monarchs are known as the Sovereign of the Garter, and the Prince of Wales is known as a Royal Knight Companion of the Garter.

Male members of the Order are titled "Knights Companion" and female members are called "Ladies Companion". Formerly, the Sovereign filled vacancies upon the nomination of the members. Each member would nominate nine candidates, of whom three had to have the rank of earl or higher, three the rank of baron or higher, and three the rank of knight or higher. The Sovereign would choose as many nominees as were necessary to fill any vacancies in the Order. They were not obliged to choose those who received the most nominations. Candidates were last nominated in 1860, and appointments have since been made by the Sovereign acting alone, with no prior nominations. The statutes proscribing the former procedure were not amended, however, until 1953. 

From the 18th century, the Sovereign made their choices on the advice of the Government. In 1946, with the agreement of Prime Minister Clement Attlee and Leader of the Opposition Winston Churchill, membership of the United Kingdom's highest ranking orders of chivalry (the Order of the Garter, the Order of the Thistle and the dormant Order of St Patrick) became a personal gift of the Sovereign once again. Thus, the Sovereign personally selects Knights and Ladies Companion of the Garter, and need not act on or solicit the advice of the Government. Appointments are typically announced on Saint George's Day (23 April).

DEGRADATION OF MEMBERS

The Sovereign may "degrade" members who have taken up arms against the Sovereign. From the late 15th century, there was a formal ceremony of degradation, in which Garter King of Arms, accompanied by the rest of the heralds, proceeded to St George's Chapel. While the Garter King of Arms read aloud the Instrument of Degradation, a herald climbed up a ladder and removed the former knight's banner, crest, helm, and sword, throwing them down into the quire. Then the rest of the heralds kicked them down the length of the chapel, out of the doors, and into the castle ditch. The last such formal degradation was that of James, Duke of Ormonde in 1716.

During the First World War, two Royal Knights and six Stranger Knights, all monarchs or princes of enemy nations and including Wilhelm II, German Emperor, and Franz Joseph, Emperor of Austria, were struck off the roll of the Order or had their appointments annulled in 1915. The banner of Victor Emmanuel III of Italy was removed from the chapel after Italy entered World War II against the United Kingdom and her Allies in 1940. The banner of Emperor Hirohito of Japan was removed from St George's Chapel when Japan entered World War II in 1941, but that banner and his knighthood were restored by Elizabeth II in 1971, when Hirohito made a state visit to the United Kingdom. The Emperor was particularly pleased by the restoration of his banner as a Knight of the Garter.

HISTORY

King Edward III founded the Order of the Garter around the time of his claim to the French throne. The traditional year of foundation is usually given as 1348 (when it was formally proclaimed). However, The Complete Peerage, under "The Founders of the Order of the Garter", states the order was first instituted on 23 April 1344, listing each founding member as knighted in 1344. The list includes Sir Sanchet D'Abrichecourt, who died on 20 October 1345. Other dates from 1344 to 1351 have also been proposed.

The King's wardrobe account shows Garter habits first issued in the autumn of 1348. Also, its original statutes required that each member of the Order already be a knight (what would now be referred to as a knight bachelor) and some of the initial members listed were only knighted that year. The foundation is likely to have been inspired by the Spanish Order of the Band, established in about 1330.

The earliest written mention of the Order is found in Tirant lo Blanch, a chivalric romance written in Catalan mainly by Valencian Joanot Martorell. It was first published in 1490. This book devotes a chapter to the description of the origin of the Order of the Garter.

LEGENDARY ORIGINS

Various legends account for the origin of the Order. The most popular involves the "Countess of Salisbury", whose garter is said to have slipped from her leg while she was dancing at a court ball at Calais. When the surrounding courtiers sniggered, the king picked it up and returned it to her, exclaiming, "Honi soit qui mal y pense!" ('Shame on him who thinks ill of it!'), the phrase that has become the motto of the Order.

However, the earliest written version of this story dates from the 1460s, and it seems to have been conceived as a retrospective explanation for the adoption of what was then seen as an item of female underclothing as the symbol of a band of knights. In fact, at the time of the Order's establishment in the mid-14th century, the garter was predominantly an item of male attire.

According to another legend, King Richard I was inspired in the 12th century by St George the Martyr while fighting in the Crusades to tie garters around the legs of his knights, who subsequently won the battle. King Edward supposedly recalled the event in the 14th century when he founded the Order. This story is recounted in a letter to the Annual Register in 1774:

"In Rastel's Chronicle, I. vi. under the life of Edward III is the following curious passage: "About the 19 yere [sic] of this kinge, he made a solempne feest at Wyndesore, and a greate justes and turnament, where he devysed, and perfyted substanegally, the order of the knyghtes of the garter; howe be it some afferme that this order began fyrst by kynge Rycharde, Cure de Lyon, at the sege of the citye of Acres; where, in his great necessyte, there were but 26 knyghtes that fyrmely and surely abode by the kynge; where he caused all them to were thonges of blew leyther about theyr legges. And afterwarde they were called the knyghtes of the blew thonge." I am obliged for this passage to John Fenn, Esq; a curious and ingenious gentleman of East-Dereham, in Norfolk, who is in possession of the most rare book whence it is taken. Hence some affirm, that the origin of the garter is to be dated from Richard I* and that it owes its pomp and splendor to Edward III."

*Winstanley, in his Life of Edward III says that the original book of the institution deduces the invention from King Richard the First.

The motto in fact refers to Edward's claim to the French throne, and the Order of the Garter was created to help pursue this claim. The use of the garter as an emblem may have derived from straps used to fasten armour, and may have been chosen because it held overtones of a tight-knit "band" or "bond" of knightly "supporters" of Edward's cause.

There is a connection between the Order of the Garter and the Middle English poem Sir Gawain and the Green Knight (late 14th century). The motto is inscribed, as hony soyt qui mal pence, at the end of the text in the sole surviving manuscript in the British Library, albeit in a later hand. In the poem, a girdle, very similar in its erotic undertones to the garter, plays a prominent role. A rough equivalent of the Order's motto has been identified in Gawain's exclamation corsed worth cowarddyse and couetyse boþe ("cursed be both cowardice and coveting", v. 2374). While the author of that poem remains disputed, there seems to be a connection between two of the top candidates and the Order of the Garter, John of Gaunt, 1st Duke of Lancaster, and Enguerrand de Coucy, seventh Sire de Coucy. De Coucy was married to King Edward III's daughter, Isabella, and was given admittance to the Order of the Garter on their wedding day."

NOW IS THE TIME FOR CHANGE - Under the present system where the Head of State is a royal, and there is no written constitution, politicians like David Cameron and Boris Johnson can lie with impunity - even to Queen Elizabeth - and not face penalties. Police officers can shoot unarmed civilians and not be sent to prison, and planning officers can deceive the Secretaries of State and High Court judges, and not be prosecuted. In effect, it is alleged that there is little justice in England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. We aver that such machinations are costing the ordinary taxpayer, Treasury and the Crown (being the state) significant sums of money, while adding to the UK's carbon footprint. Hence, the country is not being run effectively by the at present; defective administration, not to serve its citizens, but to sustain and profit itself. Unlike the US Constitution of 1791 that exists to serve the people. The UK is held to be the most corrupt country on the world when it comes to laundering drug money.

LINKS & REFERENCE

https://issuecounsel.com/issue-report/australian-republic-vs-monarchy/
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/queen-issued-brutal-republicanism-warning-as-fork-in-road-looms/ar-AAS9jYD

https://issuecounsel.com/issue-report/australian-republic-vs-monarchy/
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/queen-issued-brutal-republicanism-warning-as-fork-in-road-looms/ar-AAS9jYD

Please use our A-Z INDEX to navigate this site