Click on the thumbnails to see the letters.

The initial letter on the 17th of July to Westminster Abbey to request a service of commemoration around the time of the 200th anniversary of birthday in February 2009.

I write again pointing out my error with the date.

They reply declining to hold a service of commemoration.

I also write to St Paul's Cathedral to see if they'd be interested.

St Paul's reply saying they will take the request to their next meeting.

I write again pointing out my error with the date.

St Paul's reply saying they considered, but rejected request.

Lord Hunt informs me that Church of England Bishops may be appointed to the House of Lords.

I object, "I am dismayed that the Government still thinks it is rational and reasonable to give powerful positions to individuals whose qualifications are based upon superstition and unsubstantiated beliefs in ancient myths.

This is hardly the basis for a modern, inclusive and fair government!"

So I request that they accept my application to the House of Lords.

The Ministry of Justice reply stating the Government believes that having Bishops in the House of Lords is an "important constitutional relationship". They also give me a link where I can actually apply to the House of Lords.

Following the letter from Westminster Abbey declining to hold the service to commemorate the anniversary of Darwin's birth I create a petition on the 10 Downing St website on the 15th of September 2008.

Nearly three weeks later, on the 2nd of October, it is rejected with the reason: "Outside the remit or powers of the Prime Minister and Government"

I resubmit the petition changing the word "grant" to "request"; "petition the Prime Minister to: request a service of commemoration".

On the 9th of September it is rejected again with the reason "Outside the remit or powers of the Prime Minister and Government. Further information: This would be a decision for the Church, not the Government".

I decide to write directly to the Prime Minister to object to the rejection citing a letter I received from the Ministry of Justice which stated "The Anglican Church of England is legally recognised as the Established Church, and is subject to Parliament", and therefore the petition was within the remit and powers of the Government.

I write again asking Westminster Abbey to reconsider, but get a rather abrupt reply. I assume the date of their letter should have been October not August.

The reply from the Prime Minister's office continues to claim that the petition is outside the Government's remit.



I wonder why then did they accept the Clarkson petition, how is it possibly within the remit of the Government to make Jeremy Clarkson Prime Minister?

As Gordon is refusing to get involved I write to The Queen and the Archbishop of Canterbury to make my plea.

The Archbishop's office replies, and denies any power to intervene. No response from the Queen as yet.

At last the Queen replies and, unsurprisingly, disowns any responsibility for control over Westminster Abbey despite being Supreme Governor of the Church of England, stating that the decision lies with the Dean. So far then the Queen, the Prime Minister and the Archbishop of Canterbury have denied that they have jurisdiction over the Abbey even though it is part of the Established Church. I find it extraordinary that the Abbey is not accountable to any of these figures and, therefore, to the British people.

This is especially odd as even the Abbey's own website says, "Since the Abbey is a Royal Peculiar, the Dean is responsible to the Sovereign alone."

The initial letter sent to the Queen to request that the funds and assets of the Church of England be returned to the rightful owners, all the people of England, and that the church be reformed into a non-religious organisation for the use of all.



I had cc'd the letter to Prince Charles and Prince William, as future Supreme Governors of the Church of England. However, by 28th of May I had responses from both their offices stating that due to the large numbers of letters they receive they are unable to reply personally.

The letter to the Prime Minister objecting to the rejection of the petition on the 10 Downing St website.

The reason given was "outside the power or remit of the Prime Minister or Government." I point out that previous petitions which fell into this category were accepted, such as the one to make Jeremy Clarkson Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister's office replies confirming that they will not accept the petition. I made no request that the PM profess my views as his, so think this response was somewhat evasive.

The Queen's office eventually replies stating that the Queen, even though she is Supreme Governor, does not intervene with the day-to-day running of the Church of England. What's the point of the title then?

They did say they had forwarded the letter to the Church Commissioners, so it will be interesting to see if they reply.