Too much has been said about this, but in "Rule, Britannia", "Britons never will be slaves" does not mean "Britons won't be transported across the Atlantic and forced to work in plantations" but "Britons won't be subjects of a despotic monarchy". Words have multiple meanings. It was axiomatic to patriotic Brits in the 18th century that while they were "freeborn", roast-beef eating sturdy yeomen, almost everyone else - French, Spanish, Russians, Turks, Chinese, possibly not the Dutch but that's about it - had the misfortune to be slaves.

Regardless of who wins the prorogation litigation, this will fascinating. The courts are being invited to peer into the conundrum - the singularity, if you like - that lies at the heart of the constitution and raises the very question of what "Parliamentary sovereignty" means. The conundrum may be posed like this. Parliament is sovereign, we all know that. But what is Parliament? The standard processes of summoning, dissolving and proroguing Parliament suggest that it is a body that exists (legally) by dint of royal proclamations.