Posted on 07/17/2013 9:20:54 AM PDT by sr4402
There is still the sworn duty to “maintain the Laws of God et cetera”. A monarch who willy-nilly signs a royal assent contrary to those Laws has violated the oath of confirmation.
Still characterizing the royal assent as a rubber stamp, I see. If it were, then it could never be withheld. And I do not think you are correct about the people’s perception, unless you are accusing a staggering number of Brits of being rabid leftists.
That’s just the point - in practice, it *cannot* be withheld. To do so would break the bond of trust between sovereign and her people and bring down the monarchy. The Queen’s role in government is ceremonial, not political.
Why do you think no king or queen has withheld assent in three hundred years?
No such thing as “cannot”. That makes it a rubber stamp. The monarch cannot rubber stamp laws that go against “the laws of God” per the oath, or else the oath is broken. When the law says assent can be withheld, then it can; practice is not precedent, and the law is still clear. Furthermore, as the head of the Anglican Church, the monarch cannot act like Eli towards Hophni and Phinehas without breaking the oath of coronation.
There is a third alternative to either granting or withholding assent, still: that being reserve of assent (deferment).
Claiming that on this issue a withholding of assent on a matter such as this would be a constitutional crisis is accusing the entire UK of being liberal. Remember, this bill was forced through by unscrupulous Tories. I suspect that the Queen, if she had been so bold as to withhold assent, would have had more support among the people than everyone here realizes. The oath of coronation is broken by granting of assent.
“the Queen, if she had been so bold as to
withhold assent, would have had more support among the people than everyone here realizes.”
I’ve spent way too much time in the UK to believe that’s the case.
You still haven’t answered my question.
So everyone in the UK is so liberal as to be just fine with the gay marriage push by the Tories-in-name-only?
I must have missed the question you’re referring to.
The law is the law. Practice contrary to the law is anarchy.
No, not at all.
But I do believe that the majority of British would become republicans if the Queen inserted herself into the political process on *any* issue (I don’t think that opposition to same-sex marriage is anywhere near high enough to overcome that). The monarchy only lasts because it stays elevated from the political issues of the day.
The question, for the third time, is why do you suppose no sovereign has withheld assent for three hundred years?
You still haven’t answered my question...
Have the kings and queens personally approved of every single bill over the last three hundred years? If not, why haven’t they withheld their assent?
I cannot read their minds, and I don’t have a TARDIS to send me back in time to read their minds if I could. Therefore, the answer to that question will always be rhetorical until I can do both.
Since the Mail has been rather on the liberal side of late (especially when it comes to Israel), it wouldn’t surprise me if the polls on there were “stuffed” (the bad “freep”) by liberals.
The question of burgeoning republicanism also remains rhetorical. Notwithstanding, if Britain really is this liberal, then it is kaput.
Ah, I see.
If you cannot answer the question, then that response indeed speaks volumes.
As for the social liberalism of the British people, you are of course free to disbelieve the polls for all the good that does us. But wait and see what the reaction is to this new law - anything short of the Paris marches will tell you my perception of them is correct.
Rhetorical questions have rhetorical answers. Can one person get inside another person’s head? As for the living, one can only base one’s conclusions on observation of action. And I still insist that the law has not been nullified by the perceived bullying of “republicans”.
Anything short of the Paris marches? Sounds like you agree that the Queen is as I have said her to be; a fount of liberalism herself, and that the royal assent this thread has concerned itself with was granted willingly and not under duress. The end of the Anglican Church must be at hand.
Ain't
Why, then, do you insist on getting inside the Queen's head and confidently asserting that her state of mind must be what you say it is?
As for the living, one can only base one’s conclusions on observation of action.
And what, precisely, may be the 'actions' of the Queen be which may lead a reasonable observer to conclude her 'a fount of liberalism'?
It's surprising that you still persist in this preposterous position after it was so authoritatively demolished by naturalman1975 on another thread.
The others here have virtually claimed to have gotten inside the Queen’s head with respect to this “Act” now so-called, taking the position that ministerial advice is equal to duress. They know that the option for withholding assent still exists legally, practice be damned because practice is still not the law—and we all know (or at least I hope we know) that the rebel Tories need to be shaken out of their tyrannical positions.
It’s funny that nobody who brought up George IV got to the core of the matter with the advice he got from his ministers. He was going to withhold assent on Catholic emancipation, in the belief that granting it would violate the oath of coronation; although in retrospect that was most likely not correct, given the example of religious freedom in the USA (no US Catholic politician has ever even considered subverting the federal government in DC to the Vatican, whether conservative Catholic or, as exists in the Democratic Party, liberal Catholic). Now in this present-day example, we have a direct attack on the Church of England, which granting assent to would most certainly be a violation of the oath of coronation, and assent was granted as soon as the bill made it out of the House of Lords without even a period of ministerial consultation that I can see, which leads one to conclude that the Queen bore no opposition to the matter—all based on observation.
As for your fallacious contention that signing, rather than not signing, was a breach of her oath, I can do no better than repeat the advice offered you by an earlier poster on this thread - 'read your Bagehot'.
Thank you for your defense of gay marriage. The oath is clearer than Bagehot’s opinions (who unfortunately like Cameron, used both epithets “conservative” and “liberal” to describe himself).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.