---

Last month, Steven Ward delivered a letter to King Charles III and UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer stating they have violated the rule of law.  By doing so they have acted unconstitutionally. 

Using the Magna Carta and the English Bill of Rights as the foundational documents for the rule of law in the UK’s constitutional arrangements, Ward explains to the two men why they have violated it.  The violations centre around the covid so-called vaccines and allowing foreign influences to cause harm to British subjects.

In the case of Charles III, his violations of the rule of law also includes entering into arrangements with foreign governments and organisations, such as the World Economic Forum, to initiate and promote The Great Reset.

Ward has called for them to both “stand down” as, constitutionally, they are untrustworthy and unfit to proceed with matters of the State.

The uncodified constitution of the UK is understood by few.  And few will be familiar with the concepts raised by Ward in his letter.  So, we have dived in and attempted to provide context and background that will help our readers understand Ward’s ‘Letter Upon Constitutional Principle’.

It’s a long one folks, so grab a cuppa and then settle in.

Table of Contents

The UK Constitution

The UK constitution is a complex system of rules and principles that govern the United Kingdom (“UK”). Unlike many other countries, the UK has no single codified constitution document.  The sources of the UK constitution are Acts of the UK Parliament, conventions, common law and authoritative works such as Albert Venn Dicey, a British constitutional lawyer and theorist whose works came to underpin the widely accepted doctrine known as “parliamentary sovereignty” (which Dicey saw as central to the UK constitution).

In his book ‘Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution’ (1885), Dicey also popularised the phrase “rule of law” but its use goes back to the 17^th century.

According to Lord Burnett of Maldon, Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales from 2017 to 2023, the rule of law has been a central feature of the UK’s constitutional arrangements since at least the late 1600s.  Even though the rule of law has only been explicitly acknowledged as such in legislation since the Constitutional Reform Act (2005). 

“The Act states that the rule of law is an existing constitutional principle, without defining what exactly it means. The courts have yet to be called upon to offer a definition or determine any of its components,” Lord Burnett said during a Blackstone lecture in 2021.

As Steven Ward understands it, Lord Burnett was correctly making a distinction between the UK’s constitutional arrangements and the UK’s constitutional principles, while noting that the rule of law had been part of the constitutional arrangements for hundreds of years before it was written into legislation in 2005 as a constitutional principle.

“Constitutional arrangements” is the term used to describe the collection of sources that make up the UK constitution.  As previously mentioned, these sources include Acts of Parliament (legislation), common law (legal principles and judicial decisions or case law), the Monarch’s residual powers (constitutional monarchy) and conventions (unwritten rules and practices). 

“Constitutional principles” on the other hand, are principles that shape the use of political power. They provide a framework for the functioning of the UK’s political system and the relationship between the state and its citizens.  The four main constitutional principles that are recognised by the UK Supreme Court are parliamentary sovereignty, rule of law, democracy and international law.

The Rule of Law

The rule of law is a defining feature of constitutional democracies and a fundamental principle underpinning the British constitution. It prevents the abuse of state power, requires the law to be followed by all and ensures that legal rights are fulfilled in practice. It also underpins social functioning and stable economies by providing clear and legitimate dispute resolution mechanisms and facilitating the elimination of corruption. The rule of law alone is not sufficient to make a state democratic, but a state which does not observe it cannot be a healthy democracy.

There is no one universally agreed definition of the rule of law, but its core concepts include legality, legal certainty, equality before the law, protection for fundamental rights, judicial independence and access to justice.

What is the Rule of Law? The Constitution Unit

It is the contravention of the rule of law that forms the basis of a ‘Letter Upon Constitutional Principle’ that Steven Ward delivered to King Charles III and the UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer last month. 

On 18 September Ward, who uses the moniker Stong Aingel, sent a letter to King Charles III and UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer stating that neither were following the rule of law and so should stand down and consequentially, “Parliament(s) must be prorogued until lawful Elections are held.”

Ward points out that Charles III has contravened the “Rule of Law” in more than one instance and Starmer has contravened both the “Rule of Law” and the “rule of law” in more than one instance.

Ward labels the rule of law which forms part of the UK’s constitutional arrangements as “rule of law” in lowercase format.  For the rule of law as a constitutional principle, Ward labels it in the proper noun format, “Rule of Law.”  By doing so he is distinguishing between the rule of law in the constitution and the rule of law that shapes the use of political power. This is the same nomenclature that is commonly used.  For example, the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy states:

The phrase “the Rule of Law” has to be distinguished from the phrase “a rule of law”. The latter phrase is used to designate some particular legal rule like the rule against perpetuities or the rule that says we have to file our taxes by a certain date. Those are rules of law, but the Rule of Law is one of the ideals of our political morality and it refers to the ascendancy of law as such and of the institutions of the legal system in a system of governance.

The Rule of Law, Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy

As Lord Burnett said, the rule of law has been in use since the end of the 1600s.  An internet search reveals that the concept of the rule of law has its roots in medieval England, particularly in Magna Carta (1215) and the Bill of Rights (1689). While the exact phrase “rule of law” was not used until the 16^th century, the principles underlying it were established centuries earlier in Magna Carta.

It’s not possible to put an exact date on when the use of the rule of law in England began as it evolved gradually over time.  The phrase “rule of law” first appeared in an English text around 1500. However, it was not until later in the 16^th century that the concept gained prominence. England’s Glorious Revolution led to the adoption of the Bill of Rights (1689), an Act of the Parliament of England, which further entrenched the rule of law and protected individual rights.  And as mentioned above, in the 19^th century, A.V. Dicey wrote extensively on the rule of law, emphasising its importance and describing it as the “unwritten constitution” of England.

Individual Rights Determine Constitutional Arrangements, Not the Other Way Around

In his 2021 Blackstone lecture, Lord Burnett defined the rule of law by referencing Lord Bingham’s book ‘The Rule of Law’ (2011).  Lord Bingham defined the rule of law as comprising eight sub-rules, which include accessibility, intelligibility, clarity and predictability of the law, and the law must apply equally, as well as the protection of fundamental human rights and the provision of fair adjudicative procedures.

Dicey described the rule of law as acting in three ways: the predominance of regular law over arbitrary power, equality before the law and the idea that constitutional laws are the consequence of individual rights rather than their source.

The last action of the rule of law “constitutional laws are the consequence of individual rights rather than their source” is an important concept to understand. 

Many believe that the constitution determines what our individual rights are.  This may be the case for countries where the constitutions are codified but as Dicey argued this is not the case in the UK and it is, in fact, the other way around. 

According to Dicey, individual rights are not explicitly stated in a written document but rather are developed and refined through the ordinary law of the land, as interpreted and applied by the courts (common law). This process of judicial decision-making and common law development ultimately gives rise to the constitution.  At the beginning of this article, we mentioned that common law (or case law) is one of the sources of the UK’s uncodified constitution.  In short, the UK constitution is developed around individual rights.

It is generally accepted that Magna Carta (1215) and the Bill of Rights (1969) are the two documents that played a pivotal role in the development of the rule of law in England.  And it is within these documents that a clearer picture of the rule of law begins to emerge.

Both documents support Dicey’s concept that constitutional laws are a consequence of individual rights. Both Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights limit the powers of the Monarch and Parliament while reinforcing and confirming individual rights. What it seems to boil down to is that the rule of law relates to the limitation of the Monarch/Parliament’s powers so the Monarch/Parliament do not encroach on our inalienable rights and freedoms.

Origins of Our Constitutional Rights

While often referred to as a revolutionary document, the Magna Carta built upon existing rights and liberties rather than creating new ones from scratch. 

A 2019 essay written by a law graduate at the University of Alabama stated, “Magna Carta … is not the origin of our liberty-loving rights. Magna Carta is rather a later stone placed upon an Anglo-Saxon legal foundation started by Alfred’s compilation of laws, the Doombook.” 

“King Alfred compiled these laws toward the end of the ninth century. He consolidated longstanding customs and practices from the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms and added Biblical authority,” the essay noted.

A 2015 British Library blog stated that the earliest surviving Anglo-Saxon law code was actually issued around the year 600 by King Æthelberht of Kent.

These Anglo-Saxon laws emphasised the importance of fairness, justice and equality before the law.

Introduction to ‘Letter Upon Constitutional Principle’

Ward’s letter uses a lot of legalese so is not easy to read or understand.  We are not lawyers and we are even less so constitutional lawyers.  We will do our best to interpret what Ward is saying in his letter to Charles III and Starmer.  To do so we have taken a deep dive into the constitutional documents Ward references in his letter.  Needless to say, we are not able to assess whether Ward is constitutionally correct but his letter opens up the topic for public debate.

Images of Ward’s letter can be found on his Twitter profile HERE. We have concatenated the images from his tweet into a single PDF file and attached it below.

The letter begins with a description of on what basis, the “matters,” the letter is being served.

Ward then explains why Charles III as the constitutional monarch and Keir Starmer as the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and the First Lord of the Treasury are being served the ‘Letter Upon Constitutional Principle’ starting with the distinction between the constitutional arrangements and constitutional principles.

“This Kingdom’s constitutional arrangements and the constitutional principle over the realm are separate matters,” he explained. 

Referring to Lord Burnett’s 2021 Blackstone lecture Ward wrote, “The former Lord Chief Justice correctly separates subordinate constitutional arrangements, i.e. rule of law Liberties, and the constitutional principle Rule of Law.”

We must confess, most likely due to our limited understanding, that we can’t explain why Ward has said the constitutional arrangements are secondary to the constitutional principles.  The transcript of Lord Burnett’s lecture only uses the lowercase “rule of law” so no clues as to Ward’s meaning are available from this lecture alone.

By “Liberties”, Ward is referring to the Charter of Liberties, also known as the Coronation Charter, which was a written proclamation issued by Henry I of England upon his accession to the throne in 1100.  This charter aimed to bind the King to certain laws regarding the treatment of nobles, church officials and people.  One of the Liberties was the protection of rights; it confirmed the rights of the Church and the people of England.  You can read Henry I’s Charter of Liberties HERE.

The Charter of Liberties is believed to have Anglo-Saxon origins, with the first surviving example being that of Henry I in 1100. This type of coronation charter would later influence the drawing up of Magna Carta in 1215, also known as Magna Carta Libertatum or the Great Charter of Liberties. While both charters aimed to limit royal power and establish law as a power in itself, Magna Carta was more comprehensive and far-reaching.

Ward’s letter then moves into an explanation of the Spiritual Constitution, Temporal Constitution and the Covenant, starting with Magna Carta (1297).

King Edward I’s Confirmation of the Charters

Magna Carta has been issued several times since its initial signing in 1215 by King John.  The first reissue occurred in 1216, shortly after the death of John, when his nine-year-old son Henry III was crowned.  According to David M. Rubenstein, this version would stay in effect until 1225 when Henry III, on the official assumption of the throne at age 18, issued a shorter version.

Eighty-two years after it was first issued, in 1297 King Edward I (Henry III’s son) reissued Magna Carta by an act known as the Confirmation of the Charters. The Confirmation of the Charters adopted the text of King Henry III’s 1225 issue of Magna Carta.  It is Edward I’s 1297 version of Magna Carta that was entered into the official Statute Rolls and is currently recognised as law in England and by extension, the UK.

Several words of Edward I’s Confirmation of the Charters (1297) have since been repealed.  But what remains is a confirmation that “the Charter of Liberties … which were made by Common Assent of all the Realm, in the time of King Henry our Father, shall be kept in every point without breach.”

What is equally important and should not be overlooked, Ward points out, is the words written immediately before the confirmation of liberties. King Edward I declared:

EDWARD, by the Grace of God, King of England, Lord of Ireland, and Duke of Guyan, To All those that these present Letters shall hear or see, Greeting.  Know Ye that We, to the honour of God, and of Holy Church, and to the Profit of our Realm, have granted for us and our Heirs, that the Charter of Liberties … which were made by Common Assent of all the Realm, in the time of King Henry our Father, shall be kept in every point without breach. [Emphasis added]

Confirmation of the Charters (1297), Legislation, UK Government

This introduces the spiritual element of the UK constitution. As Ward noted in his letter: “by the grace of God” confirms the “Spiritual Constitution,” “to the honour of God” confirms the “Covenant,” “by Common Assent” confirms the “Temporal Constitution” which refers to all people who believe in the name of Jesus Christ.

In the context of Magna Carta, “Temporal” refers to the worldly, secular domain, which was distinct from the Spiritual realm governed by the Church.

King Edward I Reissues Magna Carta

According to Ward, Magna Carta contains three definitive sections for the rule of law by the Rule of Law.  In other words, the rule of law (constitutional arrangements) that politicians must abide by according to constitutional principles.

The long title of Magna Carta (1297) states: “The Great Charter of the Liberties of England, and of the Liberties of the Forest; confirmed by King Edward, in the twenty-fifth year of his reign.”

The 1297 Magna Carta’s confirmation of liberties affirmed the spiritual and temporal intention of the covenant when it included the words from Henry III’s Magna Carta (1225). Magna Carta (1297) states:

HENRY by the Grace of God King of England, Lord of Ireland, Duke of Normandy and Guyan, and Earl of Anjou, to all Archbishops, Bishops, Abbots, Priors, Earls, Barons, Sheriffs, Provosts, Officers, and to all Bailiffs, and other our faithful Subjects, which shall see this present Charter, Greeting: Know Ye, that We, unto the honour of Almighty God, and for the salvation of the souls of our Progenitors and Successors [Kings of England,] to the advancement of Holy Church and amendment of our Realm, of our meer and free will, have given and granted to all Archbishops, Bishops, Abbots, Priors, Earls, Barons, and to all [Freemen] of this our Realm, these Liberties following, to be kept in our Kingdom of England for ever. [Emphasis added]

Magna Carta (1297), Legislation, UK Government

The liberties mentioned in Magna Carta are “to be kept in our Kingdom of England for ever.”  “For ever” does not mean until another monarch decides these liberties should be revoked.  Nor does it mean until Parliament decides to replace or override them.

Magna Carta issued in 1215 contained 63 clauses. You can read a copy of Magna Carta (1215), originally written in Latin, which has been translated into English on the National Archives website HERE. Magna Carta issued in 1297 contained 37 clauses.  You can read a copy of Magna Carta (1297) translated into modern English HERE.  Since it was issued in 1297, 34 clauses have been repealed and, presumably, placed into other statutes.   However, 3 clauses remain to this day:

• I Confirmation of Liberties
• IX Liberties of London, &c.
• XXIX Imprisonment, &c. contrary to Law. Administration of Justice

As well as Magna Carta’s long title and the three clauses, the words of enactment and signatories’ names at the end also remain.  This end section is titled ‘General Saving. Observance of these Liberties. Subsidy, in respect of this Charter and Charter of the Forest.’

To make it easier for our readers, we have copied the text from Magna Carta (1297) that remains as UK law below:

I Confirmation of Liberties.

FIRST, We have granted to God, and by this our present Charter have confirmed, for Us and our Heirs for ever, that the Church of England shall be free, and shall have all her whole Rights and Liberties inviolable. We have granted also, and given to all the Freemen of our Realm, for Us and our Heirs for ever, these Liberties under-written, to have and to hold to them and their Heirs, of Us and our Heirs for ever.

IX Liberties of London, &c.

THE City of London shall have all the old Liberties and Customs [which it hath been used to have]. Moreover We will and grant, that all other Cities, Boroughs, Towns, and the Barons of the Five Ports, and all other Ports, shall have all their Liberties and free Customs.

XXIX Imprisonment, &c. contrary to Law. Administration of Justice.

NO Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor [condemn him,] but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the Land. We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right.

General Saving. Observance of these Liberties. Subsidy, in respect of this Charter and Charter of the Forest.

Reserving to all Archbishops, Bishops, Abbots, Priors, Templars, Hospitallers, Earls, Barons, and all Persons, as well Spiritual as Temporal, all their [free Liberties] and free Customs, which they have had in time passed. And all these Customs and Liberties aforesaid, which We have granted to be holden within this our Realm, [as much as appertaineth to Us and our Heirs, we shall observe; and] all Men of this our Realm, as well Spiritual as Temporal, [as much as in them is, shall observe the same against all Persons, in like wise.] And for this our Gift and Grant of these Liberties, and of other contained in our Charter of Liberties of our Forest, the Archbishops, Bishops, Abbots, Priors, Earls, Barons, Knights, Freeholders, and other our Subjects, have given unto Us the Fifteenth Part of all their Moveables. And We have granted unto them on the other part, that neither We nor our Heirs shall procure or do any thing whereby the Liberties in this Charter contained shall be infringed or broken. And if any thing be procured by any person contrary to the premises, it shall be had of no force nor effect. These being Witnesses …

Magna Carta (1297), Legislation, UK Government

Remember the last sentence “if any thing be procured by any person contrary to the premises, it shall be had of no force nor effect” for later in this article.

The UK Parliament website states: “These clauses remain law today, and provided the basis for important principles in English law developed in the fourteenth through to the seventeenth century, and which were exported to America and other English-speaking countries.”

Further reading: Magna Carta Key Facts, Britannica

Bill of Rights 1689

Another pivotal document in English constitutional law is the English Bill of Rights, also known as the Bill of Rights 1689.

Signed into law by William III and Mary II in 1689, it established specific constitutional and civil rights, limiting the power of the monarchy and affirming Parliament’s authority. It purported to introduce no new principles but merely to declare explicitly the existing law.

The Bill of Rights restated and expanded the principles outlined in Magna Carta, the Petition of Right and other earlier charters.  Like Magna Carta, it played a significant role in shaping the concept of the rule of law in England.

It established certain fundamental rights and liberties, including the right to a fair trial, freedom from arbitrary imprisonment and the protection of property.  It firmly established the principles of frequent parliaments, free elections and freedom of speech within Parliament, which is known today as Parliamentary Privilege. It also includes prohibiting the Monarch’s right of taxation without Parliament’s agreement, freedom from government interference, the right of petition and just treatment of people by the courts.

The English Bill of Rights created a constitutional monarchy in England, meaning the Monarch acts as head of state but his or her powers are limited by law.  Under this system, the monarchy couldn’t rule without the consent of Parliament.

The English Bill of Rights was used as a model for the US Bill of Rights (1789). Its influence can also be seen in other documents establishing people’s rights, such as the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights.

Related: English Bill of Rights: You are English, not British

Charles III and Starmer Have Contravened the Rule of Law

To remind ourselves, in Ward’s letter, as is the convention, “rule of law” denotes the rule of law found in the constitutional arrangements (written and unwritten) and includes supremacy of the law and that all are equal before the law.  The “Rule of Law” denotes the rule of law in the constitutional principles which provide the framework within which politics takes place.

In contravention of the Rule of Law and the rule of law, Charles III and Starmer have committed dereliction of duty and misconduct in public office, Ward notified the two men in his letter.

Concerning experimental vaccines, both men have encouraged, nurtured, manufactured and distributed harmful products that are capable of destroying life. These products were procured “on the part of foreign voices,” Ward wrote.  By doing so, unwarranted distress and injury on “subjects of or on the land” has been caused.

Additionally, Ward wrote, foreign influence has been allowed to enter “the fold” on their terms.  “The fold” is a reference to the Spiritual Constitution.  Ward uses the Vulgate’s (Latin version of the Holy Bible) The Gospel According to John, chapter 10, verse 16 to define “the fold.” For the King James Version please read HERE.

The last accusation in Ward’s letter to Charles III and Starmer also concerns foreign influence by “adopting contrary arrangements and agreements with foreign governments and persons, without Referendum and or effective, diligent consultation,” and racketeering.  Ward gave an example of the racketeering:

E.G. “donations” made to The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, which body was aware in October 2020 a “high volume of Covid-19 vaccine Adverse Drug Reaction (ADRs)” was imminent. However, propaganda otherwise was voiced at the lawful.

‘Upon the following Matters’, Letter Upon Constitutional Principle, From Steven Ward to Charles III and Keir Starmer, 18 September 2024

Specific Accusations

At the end of his letter, Ward describes accusations specific for each of Charles III and Starmer.

Charles III has contravened the Rule of Law by remaining silent while foreign influences “call[ ] from within and without Crown premisses.” Charles III also contravened the Rule of Law by adopting arrangements and/or deadly agreements with foreign governments and other foreign influences without “Referendum.” Indeed, Ward noted, Charles III has “made a virtual address (2020) promoting The Great Reset plot of an unelected, unaccountable body (World Economic Forum) that harbours individuals boasting of eugenics and similar unnatural ethics.”

Starmer has contravened the Rule of Law as he is an accessory and abettor of foreign influences.  Starmer has also contravened the Rule of Law by “arranging contrary arrangements and or deadly agreements with foreign governments and other foreign influences without Referendum.”

Because he has contravened the Rule of Law (constitutional principles), Starmer is “wrongly holding authoritative position” over the land of the English people.  As such, Starmer is a “stranger” in the land or “premises.”  As Magna Carta, which is UK law to this day, states: “ … if any thing be procured by any person contrary to the premises, it shall be had of no force nor effect.”

We weren’t able to establish what “premises” means in the context of Magna Carta.  However, we could infer – since the document primarily focuses on establishing liberties, rights and limitations on the king’s power, particularly regarding the English Church, nobility and commoners – that the concept of “premises” incorporates property rights, liberty and customs, and allowing the Christian church to operate freely and independent from royal interference. 

Finally, Starmer has been engaged in the tort of deceit from which he has wrongly financially gained, Ward said.  The tort of deceit, also known as fraudulent misrepresentation, is a legal cause of action that arises when one party intentionally deceives another, causing harm or loss. In this case, Starmer is contravening both the Rule of Law and the rule of law.

Charles III and Starmer are Untrustworthy and Unfit

In light of the specific accusations against them, Ward said, Charles III and Starmer are “untrustworthy” and “unfit” according to the word of the King of kings (Spiritual Constitution) under which they rule or arrange rulings (Temporal Constitution). Consequentially, they are unentitled and not permitted to proceed with matters of the State and should “stand down.” 

Ward gave Charles III and Starmer 30 days from the date of his letter to stand down.  If they did not, lawful proceedings would be initiated:

I. We require CHARLES PHILLIP ARTHUR GEORGE MOUNTBATTEN-WINDSOR and KEIR RODNEY STARMER to stand down, that we may rearrange the realm according to the Rule of Law, that rule of law upon the premises may be rectified as necessary, and the constitutional principle restored for the benefit of all subjects of and on the land.

II. CHARLES PHILLIP ARTHUR GEORGE MOUNTBATTEN-WINDSOR and KEIR RODNEY STARMER will be permitted a full 30 days to review LETTER UPON CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE from the date upon (it): And we pray, CHARLES PHILLIP ARTHUR GEORGE MOUNTBATTEN-WINDSOR and KEIR RODNEY STARMER stand down as required of them. Corollary, Parliament(s) must be prorogued until lawful Elections are held.

Failure to acknowledge and uphold LETTER UPON CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE Requirements I and II, as set out above, will result in lawful proceedings being initiated, in the Public Interest, within the appropriate jurisdiction.

Letter Upon Constitutional Principle, From Steven Ward to Charles III and Keir Starmer, 18 September 2024

We are now more than 30 days after the Ward delivered his letter.  As of yet, there is no update on either Ward’s Twitter profile or Substack page.

Featured image: Copy of 13^th century Magna Carta, Getty Images (left).  King Charles III, Wikipedia (middle).  UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, Wikipedia (right).