The Political Asylum

Vintage Girl · Posted: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:43 am Post subject: Threat to the Queens Oath

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7562949.stm

This is an absolute disgrace. The oath of allegiance to the Queen signifies an oath of allegiance to this country and why should our MP's be unwilling to swear such an oath?

The traditions that make this country what it is are gradually being eroded by these bloody leftie nutcases.

If you wipe out the oath to the Queen you wipe out all of this tradition which makes us what/who we are.

http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page4691.asp
_________________
Girls are like phones. We love to be held and talked to, but if you press the wrong button you'll be disconnected!

wakeyboy · Posted: Mon Aug 18, 2008 2:54 pm Post subject:

Some people dont agree with the monarchy for political and moral reasons.

Some people believe that a Republic would be more democratic and more fitting with the modern world.

It seems unfair that a politician should have to swear a pledge of allegiance to the Queen if they dont actually believe it. Whats the worth of that?

They SHOULD pledge allegiance to the nation and/or to the British people instead.
_________________
http://www.realradioyorkshire.co.uk/

muppetmurderer · Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 4:47 pm Post subject:

I quite agree, Wakey (if only to annoy VG!) Laughing

Pledging allegiance to some over-privileged Germans who happen to be in power in this country by an accident of birth does seem to be a bit strange.

Replacing the monarchy with a dictatorship (president) might be a step too far tho (unless it was me - I could make a very beneficial dictator, and you never know, the trains might run on time...)
_________________
.
.
Do you know what it means when you come home to a little affection, a little tenderness, and a little sympathy? It means you're in the wrong house

Vintage Girl · Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 5:36 pm Post subject:

muppetmurderer · Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 5:43 pm Post subject:

success!

_________________
.
.
Do you know what it means when you come home to a little affection, a little tenderness, and a little sympathy? It means you're in the wrong house

Vintage Girl · Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 5:51 pm Post subject:

wakeyboy · Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 11:12 pm Post subject:

VG I dont agree with the monarchy, I think its immoral and I dont see why one particular person, family or 'class' of people should have more priviledges than anyone else.

I certainly wouldnt pledge allegiance to the Queen or any of her heirs.

However, I dont think I'd want to see the abolition of the monarchy, because its one of the better systems we have. (A constitutional monarchy that is).

Constitutional monarchies keep patriotism and politics at arm's length. Its a good protection in that way against dictatorship.

I'd love to see an elected monarchy but then they'd just become politicians which is BAD! Maybe we should have a rotational monarchy where any citizen in the UK is selected at random ever five years to be monarch!

Very Happy

_________________
http://www.realradioyorkshire.co.uk/

Vintage Girl · Posted: Thu Aug 21, 2008 1:00 am Post subject:

BlueEmperor · Posted: Thu Aug 21, 2008 2:44 am Post subject:

Ah, yes. I should have known such a feckless and idiotic proposal would be the brainchild of that humourless rent-a-quote, Norman Baker (Lib-Dem MP for Lewes). What Mr Baker is attempting to do is, of course, as one other MP put it, an act of "uncomprehending constitutional vandalism".

The Oath, in its present form, has existed for 140 years. All MPs are required to pledge that they will "...be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, according to law..." Illiterate republican morons like Mr Baker claim they would rather swear allegiance to "their constituents", "the country" and "the laws" but, of course, that is precisely what they are doing. The Oath is a plege of loyalty to the Queen as Head of State. She sits at the epicentre of our constitutional arrangements. This country has always been a monarchy and has molded her ancient institutions around the new democratic realities. Ultimately, however, it is by the traditional authority of the Crown that Parliament sits. It is the Queen who summons and dissolves Parliament and who calls elections. The Sovereign swears in Her coronation oath to preserve our laws and customs and, therefore, ultimate responsibility for such falls upon Her as our Head of State. It is typical of the sheer arrogance of MPs like Mr Baker that they think they are the guarantors of our constitutional liberties. Well, they're not.

It is incredible impudence on the part of these 22 MPs that, at a time when MPs have scarcely been held in less universal contempt, that they should choose this moment to try to usurp the prerogatives of the Crown and underscores why the Oath of Allegiance is now more important than ever. Once every four or five years MPs are forced to grub for votes at a General Election. They return to Parliament flush in the belief that their 'electoral mandate' has bestowed upon them some god-like status. I take great comfort from the fact that they are all jolted out of this self-aggrandising delusion before taking their seats by being forced to swear an oath to the Sovereign - thus reminding them that they are servants, not masters. That they are not 'special'. That there is an authority above them that transcends the grubby little world of politics that they inhabit. Somebody who stands aloof, capable of representing ALL of the people of this country, unlike they who can only ever really hope to represent those whose votes they were successful in soliciting with a bunch of promises they usually end up breaking.

The Crown is the ancient authority in this land and the authority from which all other secular authorities derive. It is the Queen who appoints the Prime Minister and invites him or her to form a government in Her name. By constitutional convention, She appoints the leader of the party with a plurality of seats in the House of Commons, elected on the basis of a manifesto. A general election is, therefore, nothing more than a 'consultation' between the Sovereign and Her people.

An oath to the Queen is an oath to the British state, as 'lawfully constituted' (ie, as a monarchy). It ought to be possible, therefore, for even the most hardened republican to swear it. People like Norman Baker, Tony Benn, Dennis Skinner and the late Tony Banks (who, lest we forget, hypocritically became 'Lord Stratford' before he died), when they make a big fuss about swearing the oath - or, as in Lord Stratford's case, cross their fingers while doing so - merely demonstrate their ignorance (and that they're the kind of people who swear oaths dishonestly). For, if properly understood, the Oath is not a pledge of 'fealty' but, rather, an exaltation of our ancient constitutional settlement and a rejection of the divided loyalties that have led so many of our post-monarchical European cousins down the path of revolution and dictatorship.

God save the Queen.

B.E.
_________________
The doctor is in!

Merak · Inmate of the Asylum Joined: 05 Apr 2008 Posts: 214

I don't have any gripe with the oath itself, but it's completely worthless and therefore a waste of time. Anybody could swear allegiance to the Queen then promptly go and stand in speaker's corner in Hyde Park and have a rant about how the monarchy should be abolished, and then go home and have their tea. It's a meaningless oath, so why keep it when it's purely cosmetic and means nothing? Seems pointless.