The Royal “We”
One of the criticisms levelled at those who state that the common law articles of Magna Carta set out the binding constitutional constraints on our government is the claim that it was a contract between the people at the time, and the monarch (spoiler alert - it wasn’t). As such, the argument goes, people living in our present time did not sign the Magna Carta, nor did they agree to its contents and, therefore, they cannot be bound by it. Neither, the critics say, can their forebears have agreed to it on their behalf. The naysayers also try to apply this argument to the King - the King cannot bind a future King.
It stands to reason that a grandfather could not make a contract in his lifetime that would bind his grandchild. However, a people can decide what rules will bind their King, and any future King must abide by the rules the people chose, unless the whole of the people should decide to change those rules.
The Great Charter, sealed by King John at Runnymede in 1215, was a promise by the King to uphold the principles contained therein. The King promised that this promise would be kept in perpetuity, forever binding any future King (or administration):
And that the men in our kingdom shall have and hold all the aforesaid liberties, rights and concessions well and peacefully, freely and quietly, fully and completely, for themselves and their heirs from us and our heirs, in all matters and in all places for ever, as is aforesaid. 1
The Magna Carta did not, and could not, bind any future man or woman, but only a man or woman who wishes to accept the role of head of state. 2
Magna Carta expresses one requirement of the people of the land, and this is set out in Article 61 - namely, that, should the King fail to hold to the principles set out in the charter, the people of the land must stand with the 25 barons in holding him to account (distressing and distraining). Since this clause requires no more of us than is required under Natural Law (to call out wrong-doing), then the people are bound no more than they are by Natural Law.
The Magna Carta does not demand anything more of the people... or does it? If the people are not bound by Magna Carta, does that mean that a man may call out/ stop wrong-doing (as required, (but not compelled) by Natural Law) without affording the wrong-doer the right to a trial by jury? Can a man “take the Law into his own hands?” Is it only the King or the State that cannot move against a wrongdoer except by judgment of his peers and/or the law of the land? 3 This does not seem right.
Because a man is not a God, he is not omnipresent, he has to be careful when calling out wrong- doing. All the facts, circumstances and motivations must be considered. We have to be careful that we are not swayed by our own prejudices or blind-spots. This is why we call on the assistance of the twelve jurors: “Justice belongs to God; men only have the law. Justice is perfect, but the law can only be careful." 4Obviously, in a situation when a person is in physical danger from a wrong-doer or sees another in such danger, they can move to defend themselves or that other. This necessarily will involve acting in the moment. There may not be the time or possibility of detaining the wrong-doer to bring them before a jury. But what about the requirement that we call out wrong-doing or crimes in our community, in a less urgent situation? This will usually involve infringing the accused’s free will (which, in other circumstances, would be an infringement of Natural Law). In order to move against another in this way, and infringe their free will, are we acting on behalf of something larger than ourselves? Do we become a public servant in such a scenario? The essence of this idea can be seen in Peel’s Seventh Principle (of Nine) of Policing which says that the police are:
To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence. 5
So, when Article 39 of Magna Carta states:
No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land. 6
Does this ‘we’ refer to us, the people, as well as the King?
The first use of the royal ‘we’ is credited to Henry II of England when he was referring to his connection with God. This would accord with the requirement (which cannot be forced) of Natural Law to call out wrong-doing. When we are acting in alignment with Natural Law we can be said to be doing God’s Will. The royal ‘we’ was later used by Richard I to invoke the divine right of kings.7 This latter use, a profaning, or distortion of the true position. As to its very specific use, it is interesting to note that ‘Elizabeth II once corrected herself after using “we” in reference to herself and Prince Philip, clarifying, “by that I mean the both of us.”’ 8
The King is our highest public servant, his primary role is to help us to administer justice, ensuring that the principles of our constitution are upheld and that wrong-doing is called out. By their coronation oaths, our monarchs have sworn so to do.9 Other public servants are bound, through their oaths to the King, to do the same when they are acting as public servants. In a society operating in alignment with Natural Law, it would be hard for a public servant ever to be ‘off duty’. Indeed, we see even now that police constables are taught that they are never truly off duty and, in a sense, we are all our public servants - because part of living in alignment with Natural Law is calling out, and putting right, injustice.
So, when we move against someone to call out or stop wrong-doing, on behalf of our community we become a public servant. This is only legitimate and lawful if we are doing God’s will (acting in alignment with Natural Law). In such a situation, does an individual, ‘I’, become ‘We’ - acting with God... just like the royal ‘we’?
References:
- Magna Carta 1215, translation from Veronica Chapman Freedom is More than Just a Seven-Letter Word (2009)
- CommonLawConstitution Youtube Channel, Series on The Occulted Powers of the BritishConstitution: https://youtube.com/watch?v=i6elALgDydo
- Lysander Spooner analysis of use of the Latin word “Vel” from An Essay on the Trial by Jury(1852).
- D. Graham Burnett A Trial by Jury (2002).
- https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/policing-by-consent/definition-of-policing-by- consent
- Text as per Mark Wallinger’s “Writ in Water” monument at Runnymede https:// www.situations.org.uk/content/uploads/2020/05/20180620writinwaterleaflet.compressed.pdf For my poem inspired by this monument see https://www.commonlawconstitution.org/ essays-and-articles/the-meadow
- https://grammarist.com/usage/royal-we/
- https://www.newyorker.com/culture/comma-queen/lessons-on-the-royal-we-from-mary- queen-of-scots-and-the-favourite
- King Charles III oath at pages 5 and 6 https://www.royal.uk/sites/default/files/documents/ 2023-05/23-24132%20Coronation%20Liturgy_05%20May_0.pdf